logo
GOP scrambles on Trump's budget bill after Senate parliamentarian rejects Medicaid cuts

GOP scrambles on Trump's budget bill after Senate parliamentarian rejects Medicaid cuts

Fast Company5 hours ago

The Senate parliamentarian has advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to President Donald Trump's tax cut and spending bill does not adhere to the chamber's procedural rules, delivering a crucial blow as Republicans rush to finish the package this week.
Guidance from the parliamentarian is rarely ignored and Republican leaders are now forced to consider difficult options. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. Additionally, the Senate's chief arbiter of its often complicated rules had advised against various GOP provisions barring certain immigrants from health care programs.
Republicans scrambled Thursday to respond, with some calling for challenging, or firing, the nonpartisan parliamentarian, who has been on the job since 2012. Democrats said the decisions would devastate GOP plans.
'We have contingency plans,' said Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota.
He did not say whether Friday's votes were on track, but he insisted that 'we're plowing forward.'
But Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the Republican proposals would have meant $250 billion less for the health care program, 'massive Medicaid cuts that hurt kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities and working families.'
Trump wants action on the bill
The outcome is a setback as Senate Republicans hoped to get votes underway by week's end to meet Trump's Fourth of July deadline for passage. Trump is expected to host an event later Thursday in the White House East Room joined by truck drivers, firefighters, tipped workers, ranchers and others that the administration says will benefit from the bill as he urges Congress to pass it, according to a White House official.
GOP leaders were already struggling to rally support for Medicaid changes that some senators said went too far and would have left millions without coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said more than 10.9 million more people would not have health care under the House-passed bill; Senate Republicans were proposing deeper cuts.
Republican leaders are relying on the Medicaid provider tax change along with other health care restrictions to save billions of dollars and offset the cost of trillions of dollars in tax cuts. Those tax breaks from Trump's first term would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, meaning a tax increase for Americans.
GOP torn over Medicaid cuts
Several GOP senators said cutting the Medicaid provider tax change in particular would hurt rural hospitals that depend on the money. Hospital organizations have warned that it could lead to hospital closures.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., among those fighting the change, said he had spoken to Trump late Wednesday and that the president told him to revert back to an earlier proposal from the House.
'I think it just confirms that we weren't ready for a vote yet,' said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who also had raised concerns about the provider tax cuts.
States impose the taxes as a way to help fund Medicaid, largely by boosting the reimbursements they receive from the federal government. Critics say the system is a type of 'laundering,' but almost every state except Alaska uses it to help provide the health care coverage.
More than 80 millions people in the United States use the Medicaid program, alongside the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. Republicans want to scale Medicaid back to what they say is its original mission, providing care mainly to women and children, rather than a much larger group of people.
The House-passed bill would freeze the provider taxes at current levels. The Senate proposal goes deeper by reducing the tax that some states are able to impose.
Tough choices ahead
Senate GOP leaders can strip or revise the provisions that are in violation of the chamber's rules. But if they move ahead, those measures could be challenged in a floor vote, requiring a 60-vote threshold to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate divided 53-47 and with Democrats unified against Trump's bill.
'It's pretty frustrating,' said Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who wants even steeper reductions.
But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., stopped short of calls against the parliamentarian. 'I have no intention of overruling her,' he said.
To help defray lost revenues to the hospitals, one plan Republicans had been considering would have created a rural hospital fund with $15 billion as back up. Some GOP senators said that was too much; others, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, wanted at least $100 billion.
The parliamentarian has worked around the clock since late last week to assess the legislation before votes that were expected as soon as Friday.
Overnight Wednesday the parliamentarian advised against GOP student loan repayment plans, and Thursday advised against provisions those that would have blocked access for immigrants who are not citizens to Medicaid, Medicare and other health care programs, including one that would have cut money to states that allow some migrants into Medicaid.
Earlier, proposals to cut food stamps were ruled in violation of Senate rules, as was a plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

"eBay for government" helps agencies and schools auction off property, Municibid founder says
"eBay for government" helps agencies and schools auction off property, Municibid founder says

CBS News

time31 minutes ago

  • CBS News

"eBay for government" helps agencies and schools auction off property, Municibid founder says

A little slice of land in Ambridge Borough could be yours at a steep discount, and all the proceeds will benefit the local community. "We're like an eBay for government," said Greg Berry, CEO and founder of online government auction site Municibid. Berry says his company helps local governments auction off anything, from parcels of land and old desks to school buses and riding mowers. So far, about 7,000 local governments and schools use the online site to sell unneeded items to the public. The latest listing in Ambridge consists of a nearly 4,000-square-foot parcel of land along Glenwood Drive. Twenty-two bids have already been placed at just over $5,000. "A lot of times, smaller towns, and larger ones, have excess land or land that they've come into own in some form, and they don't have a need for it and they're looking to sell it," said Berry. He said maybe in this case, a neighbor wants to expand or a new park could pop up in the space. Berry says governments sell just about everything on his site. "While it's typically vehicles and heavy equipment and tools and land and things that you might expect the government to have and no longer need, it could be anything, such as sailboats and airplanes and jewelry and electric guitars," Berry said. Municibid allows consumers to sort and shop by state, borough or category. And when a winner scores a deal, here's how the costs break down. "When the auction closes and there's a winning bidder, the winning bidder pays us 9% of the winning bid amount, and then they pay 100% of the bid amount to the selling agency," Berry said. Gone are the days of going to the town hall to fill out a sealed bid. Berry told KDKA he used to work as a borough councilor and found that process far from transparent. "No one knew what the governments were selling, and if they did, the process was super inconvenient and intimidating and just wasn't very easy," said Berry. Besides the Ambridge property, KDKA found a lot of items up for grabs in the Pittsburgh area, including an ATV in Mt. Lebanon, a 2020 Ford Explorer in Castle Shannon, a Ford Crown Victoria police car in New Castle, and golf carts in Greensburg. Berry told KDKA some parents snag their teenagers' first car on the site, or business owners land some needed equipment at a fraction of the price.

Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?

Forbes

time33 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.

Nate Morris announces run for Sen. Mitch McConnell's seat
Nate Morris announces run for Sen. Mitch McConnell's seat

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Nate Morris announces run for Sen. Mitch McConnell's seat

A Kentucky businessman is throwing his name into the Republican field of candidates to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell, who is retiring at the end of his current term. Nate Morris, chairman and chief executive officer of Morris Industries, announced June 26 on Donald Trump Jr.'s podcast show, "Triggered with Don Jr.," he will make a bid for the U.S. Senate. "I think it's time to take out the trash in Washington, D.C., and bring someone new, somebody from the outside, somebody that's not a career politician and most importantly, someone that's only beholden to the people, not to McConnell cronies and the people that have been occupying this seat through McConnell over the last 40 years," Morris said. Morris, who has never served in public office but has been involved in Kentucky politics, runs a privately held conglomerate in Lexington. According to its website, the company "reimagines the industrial economy while leveraging the power of business to solve some of America's biggest challenges, including the environment and national security." Morris has also worked with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, with POLITICO calling Morris "a door-opener for Paul with big-money GOP donors." He touted his background as a ninth-generation Kentuckian, saying he and his family have been "fighting and scrapping for everything we have." "Like most Kentuckians, 19 of my family members worked at an auto plant, and I've been able to live the American dream because of how great this country is," Morris said. Morris has taken jabs at McConnell in the past, including in a recent social media post where he criticized the senator for voting against the confirmation of Pete Hegseth as U.S. secretary of defense. He was critical of McConnell during his campaign announcement, saying that McConnell's legacy will be known in Kentucky and around the country as someone who was "sabotaging Trump's agenda." "I look at Mitch McConnell as the final boss for (Trump) to defeat, and I think he's going to do it right here in Kentucky and elect an America First candidate to carry on his legacy in the Bluegrass state," Morris said. Morris joins current U.S. Rep. Andy Barr and former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron who have previously announced they will run in the GOP primary election for McConnell's seat. McConnell had announced in February that he will not seek reelection in 2026. He joined the U.S. Senate in 1984 and served as the GOP's leader in the chamber from 2007-24 before giving up the position to Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. His time as Senate leader is the longest by a member of any party in history. Cameron wasted no time and shared he would be running minutes after McConnell said he wouldn't seek reelection. Barr, who has represented Kentucky's Sixth Congressional District since 2013, announced he would also run for the Senate seat. On the Democratic side, state Rep. Pamela Stevenson launched her campaign in April. She has represented House District 43 in Frankfort since 2021 and has a background as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force. The primaries are set to take place on May 19, 2026, before the general election later that year on Nov. 3. Reach reporter Hannah Pinski at hpinski@ or follow her on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @hannahpinski. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Nate Morris announces bid for Mitch McConnell's Senate seat

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store