U.S. Budget Negotiations

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 322
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 
ChileG said:
Interesting. I was told on these boards that I am just falling for leftwing media hysteria when I worry that Republicans will cut my social security and Medicare. But I keep seeing videos of actual Republican lawmakers talking about needing to do just that (while also hoping the give tax breaks for the uber wealthy).
Click to expand...
One short-term protection is that under the rules governing the reconciliation trick needed to get the omnibus budget passed, under the Byrd rule Congress cannot make many (if any meaningful) cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Doesn’t mean they won’t do it separately, but if they can’t do it in the omnibus.

Byrd rule exceptions (things that cannot be covered via reconciliation):

“…
  • measures with no budgetary effect (i.e., no change in outlays or revenues);
  • measures that worsen the deficit when a committee has not achieved its reconciliation target;
  • measures outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision;
  • measures that produce a budgetary effect that is merely incidental to the non- budgetary policy change;
  • measures that increase deficits for any fiscal year outside the reconciliation window; and
  • measures that recommend changes in Social Security.
Any Senator may raise a point of order against an extraneous provision in the reconciliation bill, amendments, or the conference agreement. The Senate Parliamentarian decides whether there is a Byrd rule violation, and provisions struck through a Byrd rule point of order cannot be offered later as amendments. However, Byrd rule points of order can be waived by a vote of 60 Senators.

In addition to reconciliation-specific points of order, reconciliation bills are subject to other Senate points of order, like the Senate PAYGO rule, that apply to all legislation. …”

Budget Reconciliation Explainer

Reconciliation is a tool – a special process – that makes legislation easier to pass in the Senate.
democrats-budget.house.gov democrats-budget.house.gov
 
A good primer on reconciliation:

www.aha.org

Fact Sheet: Budget Reconciliation 101 | AHA

Budget reconciliation is an optional process under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that allows for expedited consideration of certain fiscal legislation that makes changes to mandatory spending, revenues and/or the debt limit.
www.aha.org www.aha.org
 
ChileG said:
Interesting. I was told on these boards that I am just falling for leftwing media hysteria when I worry that Republicans will cut my social security and Medicare. But I keep seeing videos of actual Republican lawmakers talking about needing to do just that (while also hoping the give tax breaks for the uber wealthy).
Click to expand...
Given the percentage of the federal budget that goes to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid Republicans can't get their massive tax breaks aimed mostly at the wealthy (and especially super wealthy) without making deep cuts to one of those three programs, and no doubt they'd prefer to just gut all three. They'll no doubt make deep cuts to Medicaid, but will probably be more wary about the other two, given the backlash they're already starting to get in their home districts, even deep-red ones.

But that doesn't mean they still won't find some sneaky way to cut them anyway and then try to claim they really didn't, or that they had no choice, or some other bullshit. Hell, our state legislature has been doing all kinds of sneaky crap for years in NC, including passing bills at midnight with no notice or sneaking cuts or things they want into bills that supposedly are about something completely different, such as the "Hurricane Relief Bill" that actually transferred powers from the NC executive branch and elected Democratic officials to the legislative branch. I wouldn't put anything past Congressional Republicans in their mania to give massive tax breaks to people like Trump and Musk and our other new plutocrat overlords.
 
“… The fight over curbing President Donald Trump’s ability to freeze cash is now the make-or-break dispute as leading lawmakers close in on a deal to avert a government shutdown next month.

Top appropriators on both sides of the Capitol reported good progress Monday night toward a bipartisan deal on overall spending totals for the military and non-defense programs, with a shutdown deadline looming on March 14. But House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole said Democrats’ insistence on adding conditions to stop Trump from withholding funding that Congress already appropriated could foil a final agreement.

… “I think we've moved a long way on the numbers. We're very close. I would say essentially there,” Cole told reporters.

“The real question is conditions on presidential action. And look, there's no way a Republican Senate and Republican House are going to limit what a Republican president can do.”

Republicans can pass a funding deal in the House without Democratic support, but they'll need at least seven Democrats to back it in the Senate. And Cole acknowledged it would be “very difficult” to pass a stopgap funding patch even through the House with only Republican votes.

But if House Republicans could rally a majority of their conference to vote for a funding bill in the face of a Democratic ultimatum over Trump’s authority, it would be easier to blame Democrats for spurring a funding lapse, the Oklahoma Republican added. …”
 


It is an argument the moderates seem to buy … but the GOP moderates always seem to cave on the budget deals … so the strategy probably will be to placate the deficit hawks for now to get their votes.
 

GOP Considers Taxing ‘Fringe Benefits’ To Address Federal Deficit​


"In an effort to offset revenue losses from President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, House Republicans are reportedly considering taxing fringe benefits. Grant Thornton’s Washington National Tax Office tax principal Jeff Martin said, “If enacted, workers would likely have to pay income tax on the fair market value of the fringe benefits they are getting from their employer.” Martin noted, “Administering this would be very difficult if they were to go forward with it.”

The proposals, still in early stages, aim to address the $36 trillion federal deficit while expanding 2017 tax cuts and fulfilling campaign promises. Taxing fringe benefits would require employees to pay income tax on their fair market value, reducing their overall worth. ..."

Taxing the value of your parking space (an example from the linked article) will irritate the hell out of a lot of people ...
 
nycfan said:

GOP Considers Taxing ‘Fringe Benefits’ To Address Federal Deficit​


"In an effort to offset revenue losses from President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, House Republicans are reportedly considering taxing fringe benefits. Grant Thornton’s Washington National Tax Office tax principal Jeff Martin said, “If enacted, workers would likely have to pay income tax on the fair market value of the fringe benefits they are getting from their employer.” Martin noted, “Administering this would be very difficult if they were to go forward with it.”

The proposals, still in early stages, aim to address the $36 trillion federal deficit while expanding 2017 tax cuts and fulfilling campaign promises. Taxing fringe benefits would require employees to pay income tax on their fair market value, reducing their overall worth. ..."

Taxing the value of your parking space (an example from the linked article) will irritate the hell out of a lot of people ...
Click to expand...
Sticking it to the city folk is always a winning strategy with these people.
 

Conservatives threaten to tank House budget vote needed to advance Trump agenda​

Speaker Mike Johnson has been making progress with moderates who've raised concerns about potential Medicaid cuts, but a band of fiscal hawks are refusing to budge.

"...
Wary moderate Republicans appeared to be moving toward supporting the budget resolution after receiving some assurances from Johnson about Medicaid in a future package.

Still, at least four GOP rabble-rousers — Reps. Victoria Spartz of Indiana, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — emerged from a closed-door meeting of House Republicans on Tuesday morning and said they would vote against the budget plan over concerns it doesn't cut spending enough.

"I am not voting for this," Davidson said as he left the meeting.

"I'm still a no," Burchett told NBC News, adding that he wouldn't mind a call from Trump. "I'd like to express to him some of my concerns, which is that his tax cuts aren't permanent, the trillions of dollars in debt by our own numbers that we're showing. We talked about reducing the debt — that's what we ran on."

Those four votes could be enough to kill the measure. The GOP's 218-215 House majority means Johnson can afford only a single GOP defection, unless lawmaker absences change the math. He expressed confidence about passing the resolution on Monday, asking a conservative crowd to pray for it. ..."

-----
Note, however, that they may have a little more leeway as at least three Dems may not be present due to health concerns (one has a baby due any minute, two more have other health issues apparently).
 
nycfan said:

Conservatives threaten to tank House budget vote needed to advance Trump agenda​

Speaker Mike Johnson has been making progress with moderates who've raised concerns about potential Medicaid cuts, but a band of fiscal hawks are refusing to budge.

"...
Wary moderate Republicans appeared to be moving toward supporting the budget resolution after receiving some assurances from Johnson about Medicaid in a future package.

Still, at least four GOP rabble-rousers — Reps. Victoria Spartz of Indiana, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — emerged from a closed-door meeting of House Republicans on Tuesday morning and said they would vote against the budget plan over concerns it doesn't cut spending enough.

"I am not voting for this," Davidson said as he left the meeting.

"I'm still a no," Burchett told NBC News, adding that he wouldn't mind a call from Trump. "I'd like to express to him some of my concerns, which is that his tax cuts aren't permanent, the trillions of dollars in debt by our own numbers that we're showing. We talked about reducing the debt — that's what we ran on."

Those four votes could be enough to kill the measure. The GOP's 218-215 House majority means Johnson can afford only a single GOP defection, unless lawmaker absences change the math. He expressed confidence about passing the resolution on Monday, asking a conservative crowd to pray for it. ..."

-----
Note, however, that they may have a little more leeway as at least three Dems may not be present due to health concerns (one has a baby due any minute, two more have other health issues apparently).
Click to expand...
"...If the House passes the measure and the Senate also adopts it, it's merely one step in a complicated process. It would instruct committees to craft a massive party-line bill that Republicans can fast-track to floor votes, which can skip the Senate's 60-vote hurdle.

The budget measure calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and a goal of $2 trillion in spending cuts. It includes more than $100 billion in new spending on immigration enforcement and the military. It also requires the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in cuts to federal programs, and Republicans say some of that will come from reducing spending on Medicaid.

... Some center-right Republicans in competitive districts are nervous about potential Medicaid cuts that could have detrimental impacts on their constituents. The party agrees on raising the bar for accessing benefits through work requirements, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said Monday on NBC News' "Meet the Press NOW," but said she doesn't support changes that would slash reimbursements to hospitals.

...Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., the chair of the House’s tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said there's no fallback plan to extend the Trump tax cuts if the measure fails. He said the budget resolution the Senate adopted, which includes funding for border, military and energy policy but doesn't address taxes, doesn't stand a chance in the House.

“In order for us to start the process, we have to get a budget resolution," Smith told NBC News. "The Senate version will never pass the House.” ..."
 
nycfan said:

GOP Considers Taxing ‘Fringe Benefits’ To Address Federal Deficit​


"In an effort to offset revenue losses from President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, House Republicans are reportedly considering taxing fringe benefits. Grant Thornton’s Washington National Tax Office tax principal Jeff Martin said, “If enacted, workers would likely have to pay income tax on the fair market value of the fringe benefits they are getting from their employer.” Martin noted, “Administering this would be very difficult if they were to go forward with it.”

The proposals, still in early stages, aim to address the $36 trillion federal deficit while expanding 2017 tax cuts and fulfilling campaign promises. Taxing fringe benefits would require employees to pay income tax on their fair market value, reducing their overall worth. ..."

Taxing the value of your parking space (an example from the linked article) will irritate the hell out of a lot of people ...
Click to expand...
Does this proposal include employer paid health insurance? Because that is obviously the biggest fringe benefit.
 
Calheel said:
Does this proposal include employer paid health insurance? Because that is obviously the biggest fringe benefit.
Click to expand...
Not clear from the article but that would certainly hit a lot of people — a stealth tax increase on the working and middle class if they have to include the employer contribution to health care premiums and/or HSAs as taxable income.

Edit to add that currently healthcare premiums are not considered fringe benefits by the IRS.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Now watch nearly all of those vulnerable House Republicans hold their noses and vote for the GOP budget and massive cuts anyway - all because they're terrified of pissing off Dear Leader, Co-President Musk, and their own base. Gutless, the whole lot of them.
Click to expand...
Let's be real though. It's President Musk. Trump is the beta in that relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top