&w=3840&q=100)
Trump-backed tax bill aims to undo Obama and Biden policy milestones
Chiseling away at President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. Rolling back the green energy tax breaks from President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act.
At its core, the Republican big, beautiful bill is more than just an extension of tax breaks approved during President Donald Trump's first term at the White House.
The package is an attempt by Republicans to undo, little by little, the signature domestic achievements of the past two Democratic presidents.
We're going to do what we said we were going to do, Speaker Mike Johnson said after House passage last month.
While the aim of the sprawling 1,000-page plus bill is to preserve an estimated USD 4.5 trillion in tax cuts that would otherwise expire at year's end if Congress fails to act and add some new ones, including no taxes on tips the spending cuts pointed at the Democratic-led programmes are causing the most political turmoil.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that 10.9 million fewer people would have health insurance under the GOP bill, including 1.4 million immigrants in the US without legal status who are in state-funded programs. At the same time, lawmakers are being hounded by businesses in states across the nation who rely on the green energy tax breaks for their projects.
As the package moves from the House to the Senate, the simmering unrest over curbing the Obama and Biden policies shows just how politically difficult it can be to slash government programmes once they become part of civic life.
"When he asked me, what do you think the prospects are for passage in the Senate? I said, good if we don't cut Medicaid," said Sen Josh Hawley, R-Mo, recounting his conversation last week with Trump. And he said, I'm 100 per cent supportive of that.
Health care worries Not a single Republican in Congress voted for the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, in 2010, or Biden's inflation act in 2022. Both were approved using the same budget reconciliation process now being employed by Republicans to steamroll Trump's bill past the opposition.
Even still, sizable coalitions of GOP lawmakers are forming to protect aspects of both of those programs as they ripple into the lives of millions of Americans.
Hawley, Sen Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and others are wary of changes to Medicaid and other provisions in the bill that would result in fewer people being able to access health care programs.
At the same time, crossover groupings of House and Senate Republicans have launched an aggressive campaign to preserve, at least for some time, the green energy tax breaks that business interests in their states are relying on to develop solar, wind and other types of energy production.
Murkowski said one area she's "worried about is the House bill's provision that any project not under construction within 60 days of the bill becoming law may no longer be eligible for those credits.
These are some of the things we're working on, she said.
The concerns are running in sometimes opposite directions and complicating the work of GOP leaders who have almost no votes to spare in the House and Senate as they try to hoist the package over Democratic opposition and onto the president's desk by the Fourth of July.
While some Republicans are working to preserve the programs from cuts, the budget hawks want steeper reductions to stem the nation's debt load. The CBO said the package would add $2.4 trillion to deficits over the decade.
After a robust private meeting with Trump at the White House this week, Republican senators said they were working to keep the bill on track as they amend it for their own priorities.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the president made the pitch and the argument for why we need to get the bill done." The disconnect is reminiscent of Trump's first term, when Republicans promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, only to see their effort collapse in dramatic fashion when the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, voted thumbs down for the bill on the House floor.
Battle over Medicaid In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, access to health care has grown substantially. Some 80 million people are now enrolled in Medicaid, and the Kaiser Family Foundation reports 41 states have opted to expand their coverage. The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to all adults with incomes up to about USD 21,500 for an individual, or almost USD 29,000 for a two-person household.
While Republicans no longer campaign on ending Obamacare, advocates warn that the changes proposed in the big bill will trim back at access to health care.
The bill proposes new 80 hours of monthly work or community service requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients, age 18 to 64, with some exceptions. It also imposes twice-a-year eligibility verification checks and other changes.
Republicans argue that they want to right-size Medicaid to root out waste, fraud and abuse and ensure it's there for those who need it most, often citing women and children.
Medicaid was built to be a temporary safety net for people who genuinely need it young, pregnant women, single mothers, the disabled, the elderly, Johnson told The Associated Press.
But when when they expanded under Obamacare, it not only thwarted the purpose of the program, it started draining resources.
Initially, the House bill proposed starting the work requirements in January 2029, as Trump's term in the White House would be coming to a close. But conservatives from the House Freedom Caucus negotiated for a quicker start date, in December 2026, to start the spending reductions sooner.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has said the changes are an Obamacare rollback by another name.
It decimates our health care system, decimates our clean energy system, Schumer of New York said in an interview with the AP.
The green energy tax breaks involve not only those used by buyers of electric vehicles, like Elon Musk's Tesla line, but also the production and investment tax credits for developers of renewables and other energy sources.
The House bill had initially proposed a phaseout of those credits over the next several years. But again the conservative Freedom Caucus engineered the faster wind-down within 60 days of the bill's passage.
Not a single Republican voted for the Green New Scam subsidies, wrote Sen Mike Lee, R-Utah, on social media. Not a single Republican should vote to keep them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
37 minutes ago
- First Post
'He'll have to pay': Trump warns Musk against funding a Democratic candidate
Donald Trump has warned Elon Musk of 'very serious consequences' if he supports the Democrats, after the two fell out publicly over the Republican 'The Big Beautiful Bill.' read more US President Donald Trump has warned Elon Musk of 'very serious consequences' if he backs the Democrats, following a public falling-out between the two. In an interview with NBC News, set to air on Sunday, Trump said his relationship with Musk is over. He issued the warning after Musk criticised the Republican budget plans, known as 'The Big Beautiful Bill Act', calling them an 'abomination'. 'If he does, he'll have to face the consequences,' Trump told NBC News. 'He'll have to face very serious consequences if he does that,' he added. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump also noted that Musk had spent nearly $300 million in support of his re-election campaign last year, and cautioned him against switching sides. When asked whether he wished to mend ties with Musk, Trump replied, 'No.' Asked whether he believed their relationship was over, he said: 'I would assume so, yeah,' adding that he had no plans to speak with his former ally. 'I'm too busy doing other things… I have no intention of speaking to him,' Trump said. However, he claimed the dispute had actually helped unify the Republican Party, stating: 'The party has never been this united before — even more than it was just three days ago.'


NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Why Musk, Trump Relationship Is Breaking Down
Ormskirk: It is not a good break-up. These were always two big beasts used to getting their own way. Two alpha males, if you like the evolutionary metaphor, trying to get along. And now the Donald Trump and Elon Musk relationship is in meltdown. Who could forget that iconic image from just a few short weeks back? Elon Musk standing behind the seated US president, Donald Trump, in the Oval Office, towering over him. Trump, his hands clasped, having to turn awkwardly to look up at him. That silent language of the body. Musk accompanied by his four-year-old, a charming and informal image, or that great evolutionary signal of mating potential and dominance, depending on your point of view. These were also clearly two massive narcissistic egos out in their gleaming open-top speedster. Musk was appointed special advisor to Trump, heading the Department of Government Efficiency, cutting excess and waste. The backseat driver for a while. There were a lot of bureaucratic casualties already, road kill at the side of the highway as the sports car roared on with frightening speed. But things were always going to be difficult if they hit a bump in the road. And they did. Perhaps, more quickly than many had imagined. There were differing views on what caused the crash. Many pointed to the dramatic fall in Tesla's sales - a 71 per cent fall in profits in one quarter - and the inevitable impact on Musk's reputation. Since the break-up, Tesla's share price has also dropped sharply, as investors have panicked. The attacks on Tesla showrooms couldn't have helped either. Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 Others pointed to Trump's proposed removal of the tax credit for owners of electric vehicles, or the political backlash in Washington over Space X's potential involvement in Trump's proposed " golden dome" anti-missile defence system. However, according to former White House strategist Steve Bannon, what really caused the crash was when the president refused to show Musk the Pentagon's attack plans for any possible war with China. There's only so far being the president's best buddy can get you. Bannon is reported as saying: "You could feel it. Everything changed." That, according to Bannon, was the beginning of the end. So now we watch Trump and Musk stumbling away from the crash scene. One minute Trump is putting on a show for the cameras. He's beaming away and introducing the " big, beautiful bill", a budget reconciliation bill that rolls together hundreds of controversial proposals. Next, he is accusing Musk of " going crazy" and talking about withdrawing government contracts from the Musk empire. Musk is unhappy too. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," he wrote on X. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong." Rejection and repositioning He says he's disgusted by the bill. Disgust is one of the most primitive of all the emotions. A survival mechanism - you must avoid what disgusts you. He's social signalling here, alerting others, warning them that there's something disgusting in the camp. Musk is highly attuned to public perception, perhaps even more so than Trump (which is saying something). With his acquisition of X (formerly Twitter), Musk was able to direct (and add to) online discourse, shaping public conversations. Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 Psychologically, Musk's rejection of Trump is an attempt to simultaneously elevate himself and diminish the man behind the bill. He can call out the president's action like nobody else. He is positioning himself anew as that free thinker, that risk taker, innovative, courageous, unfettered by any ties. That is his personality, his brand - and he's reasserting it. But it's also a vengeful act. And it's perhaps reminiscent of another political insider (and geek), former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings, who was sacked by the then UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, in 2020. Cummings was accused of masterminding leaks about the social gatherings in Downing Street. He went on to criticise Johnson as lacking the necessary discipline and focus for a prime minister as well as questioning his competence and decision-making abilities. The revenge of a self-proclaimed genius. And revenge is sweet. In a 2004 study, researchers scanned participants' brains using positron emission tomography (PET) - a medical imaging technique that is used to study brain function (among other things) - while the participants played an economic game based on trust. When trust was violated, participants wanted revenge, and this was reflected in increased activity in the reward-related regions of the brain, the dorsal striatum. Revenge, in other words, is primarily about making yourself feel better rather than righting any wrongs. Your act may make you appear moral but it may be more selfish. But revenge for what here? That's where these big narcissistic egos come into play. Psychologically, narcissists are highly sensitive to perceived slights - real or imagined. Musk may have felt Trump was attempting to diminish his achievements for political gain, violating this pact of mutual respect. This kind of sensitivity can quickly transmogrify admiration into contempt. Contempt, coincidentally, is the single best predictor of a breakdown in very close relationships. Disgust and contempt are powerful emotions, evolving to protect us - disgust from physical contamination (spoiled food, disease), and contempt from social or moral contamination (betrayal, incompetence). Both involve rejection - disgust rejects something physically; contempt rejects something socially or morally. Musk may be giving it to Trump with both barrels here. Break-ups are always hard, they get much harder when emotions like these get intertwined with the process. But how will the most powerful man in the world respond to this sort of rejection from the richest man in the world? And where will it end? (Author: Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University) (Disclosure Statement: Geoff Beattie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.)


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
India seeks exemption from US' 10% baseline tariff
The fate of the 10% baseline tariffs that the Trump administration invoked on imports from all countries on April 2 is among the issues now at the heart of negotiations between New Delhi and Washington as they attempt to hammer out an early tranche of the trade deal, people aware of the matter have said. Delhi is not in favour of replicating, as suggested by the American negotiators, the approach in the trade deal struck between the US and the UK, where British goods are still subject to the baseline tariffs, these people added. According to a person with direct knowledge of the discussions, Indian negotiators are pushing for their American counterparts to remove the baseline 10% rate as well as commit to assurances that the additional 16%, due to be implemented on July 9, will be left off. An American negotiating team led by assistant US Trade Representative Brendan Lynch 4 landed in Delhi on June for what is the fifth time negotiators from either side have gone to the other's capital for face-to-face talks. The American delegation is expected to be in Delhi till June 10, longer than the previously expected two-day visit. ALSO READ | India-US trade negotiations hit top gear, American delegation extends Delhi stay 'Ideally, both the 10% baseline tariff on Indian goods and the additional 16% from July 9 must end simultaneously after an interim deal is signed. Else, India will also have rights to continue proportionately similar tariffs on American goods till the time the US withdraws the entire 26% reciprocal tariff,' one of them said, citing a joint statement by the two countries' leaders issued on February 13 in Washington. While expounding 'Mission-500' to double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030 on February 13, the two leaders – Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump – in their joint statement mentioned the need for new 'fair-trade terms' that are 'mutually beneficial', the person said. A second person aware of the matter corroborated India's stance: 'Only a mutually beneficial deal would have a long life'. 'Both India and the US are sovereigns. One is the oldest democracy and the other is the largest democracy. While the US is the largest economy, India is the fastest growing major economy of the world. Hence, the deal must be balanced, equitable, fair and acceptable to their people,' the first person said. The second person added that India sees trade interests between both nations as being 'complementary and not competitive', hence New Delhi is open to giving greater market access to the American goods in the Indian market provided Washington reciprocates. 'The trade negotiations continue in New Delhi covering all these matters in a constructive manner as we speak and both sides are hopeful for a win-win,' he said. ALSO READ | Donald Trump claims India willing to cut 100% tariffs on US goods, 'but…' After UK industries faced American tariffs of 25% on all aluminium, steel and derivatives (announced on March 12), 25% tariff on passenger vehicles (announced on April 3), 25% tariff on automobile parts (beginning May 3), and a 10% baseline tariff on all imports (from April 5) – the UK and the US on May 8 announced an economic prosperity deal (EPD). The mini deal secured some concessions for the UK, but the 10% baseline tariff continued. Both partners are racing to conclude an interim, or regarded as an 'early harvest', deal before July 9, which will be followed by a wider first tranche of Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by September-October 2025. After that a comprehensive BTA will be negotiated, they said. ALSO READ | How Donald Trump decided the tariff for India The current negotiations for an early harvest deal involve greater market access for goods by eliminating tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, and improving supply chain integration, they said. The current New Delhi round is followed by a face-to-face negotiation between the two teams in the US. During that period, Union commerce and industry minister Piyush Goyal was also in the US from May 17-22 where he held meetings with his counterparts, US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick and USTR Jamieson Greer.