Determined to capitalize on a fiercely contested Senate vote, Republican leaders in the House are racing toward a Wednesday vote on President Donald Trump’s tax and spending cuts plan, effectively daring members to vote against it in defiance of their party’s leader.
After four years of Democratic failure, we aim to act immediately on the obvious mandate from the American people, the top four House GOP leaders stated Tuesday after the bill passed the Senate 51-50, owing to Vice President JD Vance’s tiebreaking vote.
There is a steep climb ahead, and this is a dangerous move intended to satisfy Trump’s demand for a July 4 finish. Republicans have fought the plan fiercely at almost every stage since it was introduced this year, frequently winning by a single vote. With a mere 220-212 House majority, they have limited space for defections.
Less than 24 hours after the Senate bill was passed, several Republicans are likely to object because they haven’t had time to study or consider the amendments, many of which were made at the last minute to earn Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s vote.
The Senate bill’s Medicaid cuts have angered House Republicans from competitive districts, while conservatives have criticized the package for deviating from their budgetary objectives.
Speaker Mike Johnson and his staff must persuade them that the negotiation period is over.
Trump pushes Republicans to do the right thing
In addition to temporarily adding new tax breaks that Trump promised during the campaign, such as allowing workers to deduct tips and overtime pay and offering a new $6,000 deduction for the majority of older adults, the bill would extend and permanently make permanent a number of individual and business tax breaks that Republicans passed during Trump’s first term. Over a ten-year period, the law includes around $4.5 trillion in tax savings.
Additionally, the package includes about $350 billion for Trump’s immigration crackdown and defense. Republicans cut Medicaid and food assistance money to help cover some of the costs. Over the next ten years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal deficits would increase by almost $3.3 trillion.
Despite concerns about expenditure cuts and the overall cost, the House passed its version of the plan back in May. They are now being asked to approve a final draft of a version that, in many ways, makes those worries worse. For instance, the Senate bill is expected to have a much greater effect on federal deficits.
We can have all of this right now, but only if the House GOP UNITES, rejects its occasional GRANDSTANDERS (you know who you are!), and does the right thing, which is delivering this bill to my desk, Trump said in a social media post that lavished praise on the bill.
The high price of opposing Trump s bill
Speaker Johnson, R-La., is determined to fulfill the president’s deadline of July 4. Additionally, he is placing a wager that reluctant Republicans will not oppose Trump due to the significant political cost they would incur.
All they have to do is turn to Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who over the weekend declared he would vote against the bill. Before long, the president was disparaging the senator on social media and demanding a primary opponent. Tillis declared right away that he will not run for a third term.
Others might suffer a similar outcome. Trump’s well-funded political campaign is already targeting Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a House Republican who has voiced opposition to the bill.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana, stated that the leadership was not considering amending the bill before to the final vote. According to him, the two chambers already concur on the great majority of its contents.
According to Scalise, it’s not as simple as saying, “Hey, I just want one more change,” because that one change could be the one that brings everything to a complete collapse.
Democratic lawmakers denounced the hurried procedure and unified against the plan as detrimental to the nation. There is no actual timeline for passing the law by July 4th, according to Rep. Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts.
We’re hurrying because he wants to throw himself another party, not because the nation requires it, McGovern stated. This is not the policy. It’s ego control.
Democrats warn health care, food aid are being ripped away
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries painted a bleak picture of the measure, claiming that Medicaid funding cuts will cause Americans to lose their lives due to their inability to obtain health insurance. He claimed that Republicans are really robbing elderly people, veterans, and children of their food.
According to Jeffries, House Democrats will do every effort for the next few hours, today, tomorrow, the remainder of this week, and beyond to prevent this bill from ever becoming law.
Republicans claim that in order to eliminate what they characterize as waste, fraud, and abuse, they are attempting to rightsize the safety net programs for the demographic that they were originally intended to serve, primarily children, the disabled, and pregnant women.
The package applies current work requirements in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to more recipients and adds new 80-hour work requirements each month for certain Medicaid-eligible people. Additionally, states will bear a larger share of the cost of food benefits; the amount will depend on their rates of payment errors, which include both overpayments and underpayments.
However, the tax cuts are the main motivator for the plan. If Congress does nothing, a lot of them expire at the end of this year.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated that if this plan is passed, the American people will always have higher salaries and lower tax payments. Additionally, it will assist in reviving our economy.
According to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan organization that analyzes tax and budget policy, the plan would provide the lowest quintile of Americans a $150 tax reduction next year, the middle quintile a $1,750 tax cut, and the wealthiest quintile a $10,950 tax cut. That’s in contrast to what they would have to deal with if the tax cuts from 2017 ended.
