Senate Judiciary eyes next week for votes on two contentious judicial nominees
'There may be a longer list of things that were kicked out by the Senate parliamentarian as non-compliant with the Byrd rule — I think we should make another run at that and look for ways to structure the provisions so that it's more fundamentally budgetary in impact and policy,' the Texas Republican said during the press call Tuesday afternoon. 'I suspect that's why they were kicked out.'
The so-called Byrd rule limits what provisions can be included in a bill moving through Congress through the reconciliation process, which allows lawmakers to skirt the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate. Arrington specifically pointed to one provision stripped in the Senate from the House-passed megabill that would have prohibited Medicaid coverage for gender affirming surgeries, and another that would have banned noncitizens from tapping into Medicaid resources.
'I think those — we need to spend more time' crafting the provisions to pass muster with the parliamentarian, Arrington said. 'I don't think we spent enough time to look for a pathway to success on them, and that's sort of the landscape, as I see it, of the opportunities in another reconciliation bill.'
Echoing Speaker Mike Johnson 's recent comments, Arrington said he suspects GOP leaders will attempt to do two more party-line packages in the 119th Congress, with the next one slated for the fall.
Arrington added members would likely demand that those additional measures be drafted under circumstances where both chambers adhere to the same budget framework, avoiding a repeat of the most recent scenario where House and Senate Republicans each gave their committees different deficit reduction targets.
He lamented the fact that the Senate did not comply with the House's aggressive instructions for writing iits version of the megabill, but credited fiscal hawks for helping secure $1.5 trillion in savings in a final product, and noted that it was not 'feasible' to expect the full magnitude of cost savings would be acheived in a single reconciliation bill — 'politically, at least.'
As it currently stands, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law over the weekend, is 'front loaded with costs and back-end loaded with savings,' which Arrington said should compel Republicans to make sure the administration follows through in 'mak[ing] sure the savings actually happen.'
'That was a concern among conservative budget hawks,' Arrington said. 'When I think about the Budget Committee's role going forward, one of the things that we need to do … is keep the pressure on the Senate, on the House and the administration to be diligent in implementation and enforcement.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No crisis after all? Why Americans might be more prepared for retirement than you think.
Listen and subscribe to Decoding Retirement on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you find your favorite podcasts. Many experts are sounding the alarm that Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033. If Congress does not act, it will only be able to pay about 77% of promised benefits, according to the latest Social Security Trustees report. Social Security becoming insolvent would create a crisis for a lot of low-income seniors who depend on that income, Andrew Biggs, author of "The Real Retirement Crisis," said in a recent episode of the Decoding Retirement podcast. However, he added that it's "very, very unlikely to happen." This embedded content is not available in your region. Biggs is not among those who believe there's a retirement crisis on the horizon or that Americans might have to plan for an across-the-board cut in their benefits. He argued that while Congress will eventually need to address Social Security, retirees and those nearing retirement are doing better financially than many people think. "We can see how many people are offered retirement plans, how many people are contributing, how much they're contributing, how much retirement savings are, how much retirement incomes are," said Biggs, who is also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "When you look at those things and you start pulling on the strings of this 'retirement crisis' narrative, it falls apart very, very quickly," he said. Read more: Retirement planning: A step-by-step guide Debunking the retirement crisis Biggs explained that his work in the Social Security Administration's policy office, which used highly sophisticated models to forecast future retirement incomes and replacement rates, changed his thinking about the "retirement crisis." At the time, he said, career SSA staff would read alarming headlines about a looming crisis and note, "Our models aren't showing that." In fact, they showed that future replacement rates for typical retirees would be about the same as today's. By most measures — income, wealth, poverty rates, or even self-reported financial security — current retirees are doing well, Biggs said. That doesn't mean no one faces challenges. But when it comes to household retirement savings, the data tells a far more optimistic story. In one example, a Vanguard survey asked retirees if the nation faces a retirement crisis, and about 60% said yes. Yet, when asked if their own finances amounted to a retirement crisis, only 4% agreed. Other research from the Federal Reserve finds that just about 5% of retirees say they are truly struggling. That, he said, is a solvable problem — and one we should address directly rather than fueling fear over crises that don't actually exist. Biggs also noted that most people who should be saving for retirement actually are. He cited Federal Reserve data showing that retirees without any formal retirement plan often fare better than expected. This group, which you might assume faces the greatest hardship, has an average replacement rate of about 90% of pre-retirement income, Biggs said. That's partly because lower-income workers receive a higher replacement rate from Social Security, and partly because many, such as farmers or small-business owners, draw retirement income from sources outside formal plans. In addition, Biggs noted that recent data showed that 88% of Americans approaching retirement have some form of retirement savings. "So a lot of it's just getting the numbers right," he said. "The number of times I hear statistics being used like 'nearly half of Americans approaching retirement have no retirement savings' — those numbers are simply wrong. It's really not even a matter of interpretation. They're just wrong." The perception gap about retirement So, how does Biggs reconcile his view with the Employee Benefit Research Institute's (EBRI) annual Retirement Confidence Survey, which finds year after year that only about one in four Americans feels very confident they can maintain their pre-retirement standard of living in retirement? "It is understandable that people will feel nervous about retirement," he said. "If you think about it — say, if you're 35 years old and you're starting to save for retirement — you have to think about what is the path that your future earnings will take, which you don't know. You have to think about what is the rate of return you can get on your savings. You have to think when you might retire. You have to think about how long you might live. And you get one shot to get it right." He pointed out Gallup data spanning more than two decades that asks Americans whether they believe they'll have enough money in retirement to live comfortably. Historically, about 60% of working-age adults answer yes. But when Gallup asks current retirees if they have enough money to live comfortably, that number jumps to 80%. That creates a significant gap, suggesting that many worry more about retirement than they ultimately need to. Read more from Decoding Retirement No crisis after all? Why Americans might be more prepared for retirement than you think. The caregiving crisis: An overlooked $600 billion problem in retirement planning Dr. Oz on the future of US healthcare: 'There is a new sheriff in town' Biggs admitted that it can all be quite confusing, especially given the number of pessimistic stories about retirement in the news. A common concern is that 401(k) plans fall short for several reasons. Chief among them is the notion that only about half of US workers have access to an employer-sponsored plan, leaving the other half potentially saving little or nothing for retirement. However, Biggs noted that there's a difference between coverage and participation. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data shows that about 72% of private-sector employees are offered a retirement plan at work — most often a 401(k), though some are 403(b)s or the few remaining defined benefit plans — and a little over half of them participate. Read more: How much should I contribute to my 401(k)? For someone at the age and income level where saving for retirement is critical, lacking access to an employer-sponsored plan is a real concern, Biggs acknowledged. But at the same time, some of the statistics from household surveys showing much lower coverage rates are faulty. In part, this is because of how these surveys are conducted, where "somebody shows up at your door, calls you on the phone and asks, 'Are you offered a 401(k) at work?'" "[The Social Security Administration] did a study where they looked at these surveys ... and then they matched those survey responses up to income tax data, which showed whether they were in a plan or not," Biggs said. And what they found is that many people answered these questions wrong, he noted. "When they used income tax data for these very same people, the participation rate rose from about 50% to about 60% to 62%," he said. "So a lot of this data ... we just assume the numbers are correct, and they're not." Balancing personal planning with national trends If there is a crisis, Biggs wrote in his book, it's not with people saving through 401(k)s or IRAs or pensions — it's "almost entirely on the governmental side." "Mathematically," he said, "we do either have to pay more into the system or receive less out of it. Obviously, the sooner Congress does something about it, the better off we are. But Congress has known about this long-term funding gap literally for over 40 years, and every year, including this year, they choose to kick the can down the road, and that just makes the problems more difficult to solve." Given that, what advice would Biggs give to folks who are planning for a potential increase in taxes or a reduction in benefits? "If you're a lower-income American, to be honest, I would say really don't worry about it, especially if you're somebody age 50 today who's approaching retirement," he said, noting that most Social Security reform proposals keep benefits in place for low earners or increase them. Read more: When will I get my Social Security check? Payment schedule for 2025. But if you're somebody in the middle or at the top of the income distribution, what you might want to do to prepare for Social Security's financing problems is save a little bit more in your 401(k) today, Biggs said. "Save an extra percentage point or two toward retirement every year," he said. "If we decide to fix Social Security by raising taxes, you can sort of dial back your contributions because those higher taxes will enable the system to pay higher benefits. But if, on the other hand, solvency is addressed by reducing benefits, you'll be prepared. That's something I think people can reasonably do today to protect themselves against whatever might happen in the future." Got questions about retirement? Email Robert Powell at yfpodcast@ and we'll do our best to answer it in a future episode of Decoding Retirement. Each Tuesday, retirement expert and financial educator Robert Powell gives you the tools to plan for your future on Decoding Retirement. You can find more episodes on our video hub or watch on your preferred streaming service. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Democrat: Trump ‘militarization' of cities ‘violates everything that we believe in'
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday denounced President Trump's 'militarization' of cities such as Los Angeles and Washington, claiming it 'violates everything that we believe in.' MSNBC's Alicia Menendez asked Goldman if GOP lawmakers are as 'unanimously in favor' of Trump's federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) as the president seemingly believes. 'I would really, really hope not, because the militarization of our cities and our domestic law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus law and violates everything that we believe in [as] Americans,' Goldman responded. 'But just as I thought there would be Republicans who would stand up for their constituents and prevent them from losing health care, prevent them from losing food benefits, prevent million — billions of dollars of offshore wind investment in their own districts, I thought they would stand up for their own districts, and they didn't,' the New York Democrat told 'The Weeknight' host, referring to provisions included in the massive spending and tax bill signed into law last month. Trump earlier this week deployed National Guard troops to the nation's capital and declared a crime emergency in the district, giving the administration temporary authority to take control over the local police force under the city's Home Rule Act. The president on Wednesday told reporters that he will seek 'long-term extensions' from Congress to lengthen the initiative. Democrats, from local officials to members of the House and Senate, have decried the move as 'unnecessary' and ' unlawful,' as data shows the crime rate shrinking. He also ordered National Guard troops and some U.S. Marines to go to Los Angeles earlier this year when protests spread throughout the city — and beyond — in opposition to the White House's robust immigration agenda, including an uptick in detainments and deportations by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Boston Globe
3 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Social Security has existed for 90 years. Why it may be more threatened than ever.
Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in money to pay full benefits. Since President Trump took office the program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have sued. Trump administration officials including the president for months falsely claimed millions of dead people were receiving Social Security benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk called the program a potential 'Ponzi scheme.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump and other Republicans have said they will not cut Social Security benefits. Yet the program remains far from the sound economic system that FDR envisioned 90 years ago, due to changes made — and not made — under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Advertisement Here's a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program. The go-broke date has been moved up The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to 2034, instead of last year's estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits, according to an annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, the report concluded. Advertisement The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by former President Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers. Republicans' new tax legislation signed into law in July will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'They haven't laid out an idea to fix it yet,' he said. The privatization conversation has been revived The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred investment accounts dubbed " Trump accounts " may serve as a " backdoor to privatization," though Treasury has walked back those comments. The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social Security since former President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan was not well-received by the public. Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in Bush's White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs to be reduced in size in order to maintain benefits for generations to come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. 'We will have to make a choice,' Hubbard said. 'If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we're going to have to raise everyone's taxes a lot. And if that's what people want, that's a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on.' Advertisement Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the ship without requiring big tax increases, if it's done over time. 'It's really a political choice,' he said, adding 'Neither one of those is pain free.' Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump, rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency's effort to reduce the size of the government. Martin O'Malley, who was Social Security agency commissioner under Biden, said he thinks the problems go deeper. 'There is no openness and there is no transparency' at the agency, he said. 'And we hear about field offices teetering on the brink of collapse.' A Social Security Administration representative didn't respond to a request for comment. Concerns persist An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans — particularly Democrats — support the program but aren't confident the benefit will be available to them when they retire. 'So much of what we hear is that its running out of money,' said Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be expanded. 'In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political stretch,' she said. They include raising the income tax cap on high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less inclined to support that change. Advertisement Some call for shrinking the program Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump's second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age. Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose of being a social safety net for low-income seniors and is far too large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal investment account. She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as they worked the same number of years, which she argues would increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this would impact middle-class earners is unclear. 'When talking about needing to reform the system, we need to reform it so that we don't have indiscriminate 23% across the board cuts for everybody,' Greszler said. 'We need to reform the system in a more thoughtful way, so that we are protecting those who are most vulnerable and reliant on Social Security.'
