U.S. Budget - OBBB | Medicare Part D premiums set to rise

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 47K
  • Politics 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
The bill right now is bare bones. It's only 28 pages, mostly extensions of low-hanging Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions that are expiring. Expect to see amendments early next week that include the real meat. I think this is a case of keeping the substantive and politically fraught stuff out of eyesight until the last minute. In other words, stay tuned.
Click to expand...
That was my takeaway, as well. That said, it suggests to me that many of the amendments to be offered will go down in flames and there will be no "Big Beautiful Bill" going to the Senate.

I'm guessing the Big Beautiful Bill coming out of the House will be little different from the 2017 tax bill that lined the pockets of the well to do and did nothing of substance to benefit working and middle class families.
 
heelinhell said:
That was my takeaway, as well. That said, it suggests to me that many of the amendments to be offered will go down in flames and there will be no "Big Beautiful Bill" going to the Senate.

I'm guessing the Big Beautiful Bill coming out of the House will be little different from the 2017 tax bill that lined the pockets of the well to do and did nothing of substance to benefit working and middle class families.
Click to expand...
I think that is probably a safe bet. The margins are so narrow, the bill will regress toward the easiest version of itself, and I think you're right that that will look a lot like the 2017 TCJA extended.

There is probably already a framework that Jason Smith is sitting on and he'll offer it as an amendment in the form of a substitute, i.e. replace the full bill text with this new text. Even assuming it passes, I think there is little chance the Senate passes any House version as written. The Senate will pass their own version, then the two bills will go to reconciliation where the real work will happen.

One thing I'm watching is the revenue scoring of whatever happens. The rules prevent a budget reconciliation bill from increasing the deficit beyond the 10-yr budget window. The 2025 budget resolution that provides for reconciliation here plays games. It says to use a "current policy baseline" instead of a "current law baseline." That means, assume all laws in effect as of a snapshot when the bill is passed will remain in effect in perpetuity. The TCJA provisions, of course, are scheduled to expire if there is no action. A current policy baseline says ignore that they will expire, pretend they're permanent. Thus, any extension of them costs no money. It's a total fabrication and gimmick. It's like assuming a ball thrown in the air and currently in the air at this moment will always stay in the air. A current law baseline, on the other hand, says to consider the natural expiration of provisions. Thus, it would cost money to extend them.

Will the Parliamentarian allow scoring on a current policy baseline? If not, will the Senate try to overrule her?
 
I should add that this is all a little comical, too. Because the 2017 bill, also passed through reconciliation, sunset many provisions that cost money so that it would comply with the rule not to add to the deficit beyond the budget window. And I believe at least part of the thinking there was that Trump term 1 would be immediately followed by Trump term 2, and the taxpayer-friendly provisions scheduled to expire at the end of 2025 would be the next president's problem. Oops.
 
I wonder if they realize a $500 increase in the child tax credit will add close to 30 Billion annually? Or that the increases in the standard deduction would add roughly another 30 Billion? Should be fun how the math works out for them.
 
BlueSmoke said:
I wonder if they realize a $500 increase in the child tax credit will add close to 30 Billion annually? Or that the increases in the standard deduction would add roughly another 30 Billion? Should be fun how the math works out for them.
Click to expand...
That is one reason among many why the Treasury Secretary is urging Congress to raise the debt ceiling...
 


GOP is likely disappointed — they want everyone who uses it off Obamacare, but it’s a start.
 
even the sprinter, Josh Hawley, doesn't like this 😞

www.rawstory.com

Staunch MAGA senator turns on GOP colleagues as he slams 'cover of night' Medicaid deal

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) blasted his fellow Republicans for threatening to cut Medicaid to help offset tax cuts sought by President Donald Trump.Missouri voters decisively elected to expand the state's Medicaid coverage in 2020, and now about 21 percent of residents benefit from that health care...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
Per Bloomberg, looks like the draft bill will increase the SALT cap from $10k to $30k, but only available to those making under $400k. A handful of House Rs said late last week that a $30k SALT cap was a nonstarter for them.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

The Joint Committee says the SALT provision as currently drafted brings in $915 billion dollars between 2025 and 2034. I've also read the Senate is wary of the rollback of clean energy provisions in the House bill. Those also bring in a good chunk of money. Will be interesting to see how much those provisions can be tweaked to gain votes and where the lost revenue will be made up. The House bill doesn't futz with corporate rates (income tax; alternative minimum tax; stock buyback excise tax) and those may be an easy lever to pull to make up revenue.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

“Tucked away on page 380 is a provision that would give the Trump administration a powerful new tool to silence dissent.

The provision would grant the Treasury Secretary the power to terminate the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group they deem a "terrorist supporting organization." A "terrorist supporting organization" is any nonprofit that provides "material support" to a designated terrorist group. The term "material support" is broadly defined, and includes "any service," "expert advice," or "personnel" — regardless of whether that support is connected to violent acts. Nor is there any standard of evidence regarding what kind of information the Treasury Secretary can consider when deciding whether a nonprofit provided "material support."

The Treasury Secretary only needs to notify the nonprofit of the impending designation. They can decline to describe the "material support" the nonprofit allegedly provided if the Treasury Secretary decides "disclosure of such description would be inconsistent with national security or law enforcement interests."

The nonprofit would have 90 days to respond to the Treasury Secretary or challenge the designation in court. But it shifts the burden of proof onto the nonprofit to establish its innocence.

A similar provision passed the House as a standalone bill in November 2024 on a 219-184 vote. 15 Democrats and all but one Republican supported the bill, largely based on allegations that nonprofit groups were supporting Hamas after the October 7 attacks on Israel.”

~ Popular Information
 
farce© said:
“Tucked away on page 380 is a provision that would give the Trump administration a powerful new tool to silence dissent.

The provision would grant the Treasury Secretary the power to terminate the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit group they deem a "terrorist supporting organization." A "terrorist supporting organization" is any nonprofit that provides "material support" to a designated terrorist group. The term "material support" is broadly defined, and includes "any service," "expert advice," or "personnel" — regardless of whether that support is connected to violent acts. Nor is there any standard of evidence regarding what kind of information the Treasury Secretary can consider when deciding whether a nonprofit provided "material support."

The Treasury Secretary only needs to notify the nonprofit of the impending designation. They can decline to describe the "material support" the nonprofit allegedly provided if the Treasury Secretary decides "disclosure of such description would be inconsistent with national security or law enforcement interests."

The nonprofit would have 90 days to respond to the Treasury Secretary or challenge the designation in court. But it shifts the burden of proof onto the nonprofit to establish its innocence.

A similar provision passed the House as a standalone bill in November 2024 on a 219-184 vote. 15 Democrats and all but one Republican supported the bill, largely based on allegations that nonprofit groups were supporting Hamas after the October 7 attacks on Israel.”

~ Popular Information
Click to expand...
Just because Congress puts viewpoint discrimination into a law doesn't make it constitutional.

But if they do put it in there, I can't wait to use it to strip all right-wing think tanks who have ever supported the terrorist organization known as Donald J Trump For President. Say hello to poortown, "Alliance Defending 'Freedom'"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top