To save Trump's ‘one big, beautiful bill,' Republicans disregard the math
'Has the CBO ever been wrong?' she asked.
Arrington responded by noting that the CBO, which scores and estimates how much legislation will cost, got wrong the price of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the 2017 tax slash law whichTrump signed, and the scoring of the 2010 health care law signed by Barack Obama, also known as Obamacare.
'In my short tenure, they actually were off their estimation of the deficit,' he said regarding spending under President Joe Biden. 'They were wrong in their projections on revenue to the Treasury post-TCJA.'
Republicans began their hearing on Rules – which needs to pass legislation for it to go to the floor for a simple majority vote – at 1 a.m. Wednesday.
'So all this conversation about how reliant we should be on the CBO score to tell us what the cost of we're doing is going to be, CBO has not been reliable, as history has shown,' he emphasized.
Arrington and Houchin's characterizations are selective at best, but a way to advance partisanship at worst.
Despite occasionally falling short, the Congressional Budget Office is still regarded as the most credible and nonpartisan source for spending projections on Capitol Hill. Its director, Phillip Swagel, an alumnus of the George W. Bush administration, began the job during Republican control of the Senate in 2019, and was re-appointed during Democratic control of the Senate in 2023.
Yet House Republicans have every reason to discredit the CBO ahead of a vote on Trump's proposal. They don't like the numbers.
The CBO found that if Congress passed just an extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, the deficit would increase by $3.8 trillion. That same analysis showed that the bottom ten percent of households would lose 4 percent of income in 2033, while the top 10 percent of households would see their incomes increase by 2 percent in 2033.
This would be the result mostly of proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, and Medicaid. The bill would put in place work requirements that fiscal conservatives like Texas Rep. Chip Roy and South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman considered insufficient.
Specifically, it also requires that parents of children between the ages of seven and 18 to work for SNAP benefits – but a parent can get an exception if they are a stay-at-home married parent.
And that's not the only body blow that is ready for Democrats to attack. A separate CBO report on the estimated effects on the budget found that as many as 7.6 million people would lose coverage because of the Medicaid changes. That might make some of the lawmakers from swing districts, or with large swaths of their population dependent on Medicaid, queasy.
And this all came without the manager's amendment, which would lay out the side deal that House Speaker Mike Johnson made with the SALT caucus, a group of Republicans from blue states who want the cap raised on the amount of money that people can deduct from their state and local taxes on their federal taxes.
As of Wednesday evening, the House leadership had yet to release the manager's amendment. As a result, House Republicans are pushing for a bill that is already outdated.
Trump had made his trek to the Hill on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, he invited the fiscal hawks in the House Freedom Caucus to the White House. Two of them, Ralph Norman and Chip Roy of Texas, who both sit on the Budget Committee, initially sank the bill on Friday before they voted 'present' late on Sunday evening to allow it to move to Rules, where both men also sit.
But it seems like the pressure campaign hasn't worked on the Freedom Caucus. Before the meeting, Roy posted on X, that he would dig in his heels.
'Writing a deficit-backed blank check (SALT) is easier than cutting spending (DOGE, Green New Scam, Post-COVID spending),' he posted. 'Congress/swamp will always choose the easy route but we can't afford it.'
In the past, Roy has correctly pointed out that the bill would explode the federal budget deficit.
Yet the House Republican leadership has decided to throw congressional math homework on the debt out the window for political expediency. Whether the Freedom Caucus decides to give them a failing grade will determine if Trump's bill passes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
Walmart's earnings report will test investor confidence in US market
NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Investors expect Walmart's (WMT.N), opens new tab management to strike a cautious tone on customer demand as the U.S. labor market cools and inflation ticks up, though the company has outperformed its peers over the last year due to its reliance on grocery sales and wealthier customers shopping there more often. Still, analysts say this environment is a sweet spot for Walmart, which reports second-quarter results on Thursday before markets open. Its low-price model and dominance in grocery can help it weather economic storms better than others. The world's largest retailer by sales has surpassed earnings estimates for 11 consecutive quarters, according to LSEG data, sending its valuation soaring even as other consumer staples companies have struggled this year. The Arkansas-based chain's stock has gained nearly 37% in the last 12 months, one of the notable non-tech companies leading a market that has largely sloughed off the effects of U.S. President Donald Trump's ongoing trade war. The broader Consumer Staples sector (.SPLRCS), opens new tab is up 4.5%, trailing the broad-market S&P 500. The company's May-to-July results are the most closely watched event among this week's retail earnings, following Tuesday's results from Home Depot (HD.N), opens new tab and Wednesday's reports from Lowe's (LOW.N), opens new tab and Target (TGT.N), opens new tab. Its significance goes beyond retail; as one of the largest and most recognizable companies in the U.S., Walmart is viewed as a barometer for the state of the U.S. consumer. "Walmart essentially is middle America, so I'll be looking for cues from Walmart as to the health of the broader economy," said Charles Sizemore, a Walmart investor. U.S. shoppers remain resilient despite declining sentiment, but they are being increasingly selective about purchases and have shown signs of trading down. RBC Capital Markets analyst Steven Shemesh cautioned that Walmart may adopt a more cautious tone heading into the second half. "The million-dollar question at this point is how customers respond to higher prices. We have seen some higher prices to date, and the consumer has managed through them OK, and we haven't seen a material impact to volume. But I don't think they're very widespread price increases at this point where the consumer has really noticed," Shemesh said. Home Depot (HD.N), opens new tabmissed estimates for quarterly revenue and profit, but kept its annual forecasts intact on Tuesday. Walmart's forward price-to-earnings ratio currently stands at 35.7, compared with an average of 25.5 over the past five years, suggesting investors expect growth. Its market value has soared to about $800 billion, per LSEG Datastream. Investors and analysts expect the retailer to report earnings of 74 cents a share, up nearly 11% from a year ago, and revenue of $176.16 billion, up 4%. Sales fell slightly short of expectations in Walmart's last quarter, but July's retail sales report bolstered analysts' confidence in current spending trends. "July's data showing retail sales grew faster than inflation tells me that the consumer is still spending and unit counts are up," said D.A. Davidson analyst Michael Baker. Reuters' global tariff tracker shows at least 92 out of nearly 300 companies have announced price hikes in response to the trade war, with about one-third from the consumer sectors. That includes Tide detergent and Bounty paper towels maker Procter & Gamble (PG.N), opens new tab, a top Walmart supplier. "Third quarter is the make-or-break quarter, really, where the higher prices ... are going to be passed along in a more broader way than what we are seeing now," Shemesh said.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
New pics of Trump holding court in Oval Office branded ‘embarrassing' as world leaders sit around his desk: ‘Like schoolchildren'
New pictures showing Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office in front of major world leaders has been criticized as an "embarrassing" power play by the president, in what should have been a display of global unity. Some on social media noted that the set up, with Trump behind the Resolute Desk and his European counterparts on chairs opposite him, presented the president as hosting a bunch of 'unruly schoolchildren.' The president was joined for the photo-op by leaders including British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, French president Emmanual Macron, German Chancellor Freidrich Merz, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni and Finnish president Alexander Stubb. Also in attendance were European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Another photo showed a smiling Trump posing with a new golf club, gifted to him by Zelensky. However, the meeting of the circled leaders drew the ire of social media users, with some commenting that the staging and White House mantra of of 'peace through strength' was 'deeply disrespectful to U.S. history itself.' 'Permenant peace is never truly obtained through strength. It may hold for a while under pressure, but it won't last,' wrote one user. 'What a breathtakingly rude, narcissistic asshole,' another said. 'Instead of a conference table where everyone can meet equally, Chump lined them up like unruly school children in a row with himself as the authority figure. Chump can just f*** all the way off.' Others questioned how the leaders, who came to Washington D.C. as 'equals' had allowed such a belittling set up. 'Embarrassing,' wrote one user, with another going further, writing 'I cannot believe they let Trump seat them like a bunch of schoolchildren. 'Do none of these 'leaders' have any testosterone whatsoever or PR teams that can approve/reject seating arrangements. Most embarrassing thing I've ever seen for the EU.'
Sky News
21 minutes ago
- Sky News
What would US-backed security guarantees for Ukraine look like?
Promises of security guarantees for Ukraine have been lauded as "game-changing" and "historic" in the hope of bringing an end to the war with Russia. As all eyes moved from Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington, the White House claimed Russia has agreed to the US providing 'NATO-style protection' when the fighting ends. Although there has been no confirmation from the Kremlin, Ukraine, the UK, and other Western allies say details of a post-war security agreement will be finalised in the coming days. What has been said so far? Security guarantees have long been talked about as a way of ensuring peace in Ukraine when fighting comes to an end. Since March, when the UK and France spearheaded a largely European 'coalition of the willing' and potential peacekeeping force, many have claimed it would be ineffective without American backing. The US has repeatedly refused to be drawn on its involvement - until now. Two days after Mr Putin travelled to Alaska for talks with the Trump team, US special envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Russia had agreed to Ukrainian security guarantees. He claimed that during the summit, the Kremlin had conceded the US "could offer Article-5 like protection", which he described as "game-changing". Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all. This was bolstered by the US president himself after he met his Ukrainian counterpart in Washington on Monday. He said the pair had "discussed security guarantees", which would be "provided by the various European countries" - "with coordination with the United States of America". Writing on X the following day, the Ukrainian leader said the "concrete content" of the security agreement would be "formalised on paper within the next 10 days". US reports say security agreement talks will be headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 5:57 What would security guarantees look like? Very few details have emerged so far, despite the series of high-profile meetings. Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Mr Trump said European nations are going to "frontload" the security agreement with soldiers. "They want to have boots on the ground", he told the broadcaster, referring to the UK, France, and Germany in particular. He insisted the US would not send ground troops, adding: "You have my assurance and I'm president." Sir Keir Starmer said the coalition of the willing is "preparing for the deployment of a reassurance force" in the event of "hostilities ending". This was the original basis for the coalition - soldiers from various European and allied nations placed strategically across Ukraine to deter Russia from launching future attacks. But troops alone are unlikely to be enough of a deterrent for Vladimir Putin, military analyst Sean Bell says. "This is all about credibility and I don't think boots on the ground is a credible answer," he tells Sky News. Stationing soldiers along Ukraine's 1,000-mile border with Russia would require around 100,000 soldiers at a time, which would have to be trained, deployed, and rotated, requiring 300,000 in total. The entire UK Army would only make up 10% of that, with France likely able to contribute a further 10%, Bell says. Several European nations would feel unable to sacrifice any troops for an umbrella force due to their proximity to Ukraine and risk of further Russian aggression. "You're not even close to getting the numbers you need," Bell adds. "And even if you could, putting all of NATO's frontline forces in one country facing Russia would be really dangerous - and leave China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia free to do whatever they wanted." History of failed security agreements in Ukraine Current proposals for Ukrainian security guarantees are far from the first. In December 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum alongside the UK, US, and Russia. The Ukrainians agreed to give up their Soviet-inherited nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of their sovereignty and a place on the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Twenty years later in 2014, however, Russia violated the terms with its illegal annexation of Crimea and the war between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian in the Donbas region. Similarly, the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 were designed to bring an end to the Donbas war. Mediated by France and Germany, they promised a ceasefire, withdrawal of weapons, and local elections in the separatist-occupied Donbas, but were repeatedly violated and failed to result in lasting peace. 'Article 5-like protection' When Mr Witkoff first mentioned security guarantees again, he described them as "Article 5-like" or "NATO-style". Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all. It has only ever been invoked once since its inception in 1949 - by the US in response to the 9/11 attacks of 2001. Russia has repeatedly insisted Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO and cited the risk of it happening among its original reasons for attacking Kyiv in 2022. NATO general-secretary Mark Rutte has said Ukrainian membership is not on the table, but that an alternative "Article 5-type" arrangement could be viable. The alliance's military leaders are due to meet on Wednesday to discuss options. It is not clear how such a special security agreement and formal NATO membership would differ. Bell says that negotiations on this - and any surrendering of Ukrainian territory - will be the two most difficult in ending the war. But he stresses they are both key in providing the "flesh on the bones" to what the coalition of the willing has offered so far. "It will be about trying to find things that make the Western commitment to the security of Ukraine enduring," Bell adds. US airpower, intelligence and a better Ukrainian military Other potential options for a security agreement include air support, a no-maritime zone, intelligence sharing, and military supplies. Imposing either a no-fly over Ukraine or no-maritime zone across the Black Sea would "play to NATO's strengths" - as US air and naval capabilities alone far outstrip Russia's, Bell says. Sharing American intelligence with Kyiv to warn of any future Russian aggression would also be a "massive strength" to any potential deterrence force, he adds. Ukraine is already offering to buy an extra $90bn (£66.6bn) in US weapons with the help of European funds, Mr Zelenskyy said this week. And any security agreement would likely extend to other military equipment, logistics, and training to help Ukraine better defend itself years down the line, Bell says. "At first it would need credible Western support, but over time, you would hope the international community makes sure Ukraine can build its own indigenous capability. "Because while there's a lot of focus on Ukraine at the moment, in five years' time, there will be different governments and different priorities - so that has to endure."
