logo
House GOP, still searching for common ground

House GOP, still searching for common ground

Politico10-02-2025

Presented by NFIB
ON SECOND THOUGHT: So about the House Budget Committee considering a budget this week…
House Republicans remain at loggerheads over core fundamental tax-and-spending issues as they try to build a single, large fiscal package in the coming months that would extend expiring tax cuts and enact other of President Donald Trump's priorities, as our Benjamin Guggenheim and Meredith Lee Hill reported late on Sunday.
Those issues keep pushing back the House GOP's timeline. House Republicans were hopeful they'd be able to roll out the details of a budget resolution late last week, ahead of a committee mark-up this week.
But Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged on Sunday that his conference's timeline might keep slipping. 'The details really matter,' Johnson said on 'Fox News Sunday.'
Those lost days might end up being costly, too. Senate Republicans are poised to plunge ahead with the consideration of their own budget this week, to start the process for their preferred two-step approach — in which Republicans would presumably score an early victory on issues like border security, in which there is basic agreement within the party, and hold off on the more complicated issue of extending the temporary parts of the 2017 tax cuts and potentially offering further tax relief.
MORE ON THAT IN A BIT, but first thanks for joining this 'well, that was a happy birthday for Saquon' version of Weekly Tax. Also, time to catch up on the lobbying over the penny!
Descending like the confetti at a Super Bowl: Today marks 53 years since David Bowie first rolled out the alien alter ego Ziggy Stardust, at a performance at a now-closed London pub named the Toby Jug.
Be a hero. Send your best tips and feedback.
Email: bbecker@politico.com, bfaler@politico.com, bguggenheim@politico.com and teckert@politico.com.
You can also reach us on X at @berniebecker3, @Brian_Faler, @ben_guggenheim, @tobyeckert, @POLITICOPro and @Morning_Tax.
Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories.
DRILLING DOWN FURTHER: So what are these hang-ups plaguing House Republicans?
One big issue is, essentially, how much money to give the Ways and Means Committee to cut taxes. Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) has been pushing for around $5.5 trillion over a decade, an acknowledgment of the steep costs of extending the expiring parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (around $4.6 trillion on its own) and Trump's interest in other ideas, like scrapping taxes on tipped income.
But key deficit hawks in the House, like Budget Chair Jodey Arrington and Rep. Chip Roy, both Texans, have worked to push that number down, with a $4.7 trillion figure making the rounds by the end of last week.
That would be kind of an awkward number, according to several D.C. tax people. It would certainly make it more difficult to permanently extend the temporary TCJA provisions, which Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has stressed is a top priority for Trump and his administration.
There are a lot of moving parts to consider. The cost of a permanent extension of the expiring tax cuts is why a good number of Republicans are fans of using something called the current policy baseline, which basically assumes that it costs nothing to keep those temporary provisions.
Republicans have other options as well — including, of course, passing at least portions of their tax platform for shorter lengths of time. They also have a variety of revenue-raisers they can look to as a way to finance further tax cuts, like slashing some of the clean energy incentives signed into law by former President Joe Biden.
Still, the tax priorities that Trump's team spelled out last week underscore the challenge for Republicans. The president wants about a half-dozen tax relief measures, also including eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits and overtime pay and offering relief to the current $10,000 cap on state and local taxes, while he's offering a couple ways to raise revenues — ending the preferential treatment for carried interest and hiking taxes on rich owners of pro sports franchises.
The issue there, as the deficit hawks at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted, is that the tax relief in Trump's wish list far, far outstrips the new revenues — by as little as $5 trillion over a decade, and as much as $11 trillion.
(Worth noting: Trump and his team keep bringing up his desire to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. Critics of that idea note that it would both be expensive and largely help better off beneficiaries. But it's also a proposal that would seem exceedingly difficult to pass through the budget reconciliation process, which specifically prohibits changes to Social Security.)
BROADENING THIS OUT A BIT: Congressional Democrats have been pretty open about the fact that they don't expect to play any real policymaking role in the debate over the expiring tax cuts.
Republicans still have well over 10 months to pass an extension of the temporary chunks of the Trump tax cuts. But the longer they have trouble getting on the same page on taxes, the more fears will grow within the GOP that they might need Democrats' assistance in avoiding at least a total expiration of TCJA's tax cuts for individuals.
With that in mind: New polling from a trio of liberal groups — Data for Progress, Groundwork Collaborative and the Student Borrowers Protection Center — makes the case that voters aren't fans of some of the trade-offs that might be necessary to offset the costs of tax cut extensions.
The polling found that majorities of voters support programs to boost energy efficiency and student loan repayment options, while opposing cuts to programs like food stamps, Medicaid and Medicare. Meanwhile, a majority of voters continue to oppose tax cuts for the rich and corporations.
That points to a broader challenge facing Republicans. It's not just that it's difficult for the GOP to find palatable tax increases to help fund their agenda. It's also that lots of government spending programs are quite popular as well.
For instance, Elizabeth Pancotti, Groundwork Collaborative's manging director of policy and advocacy, noted that a majority of Republicans back clean energy programs — underscoring the difficulty the GOP might face in cutting parts of the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law by Biden, which has brought new economic activity to a number of red congressional districts over the last couple years.
More broadly speaking, Pancotti argued the GOP is essentially danged if they do, danged if they don't on tax issues this year. Either Republicans will have to come to Democrats for help, she said, or they'll end up passing what will turn out to be a second unpopular tax package in eight years, after TCJA failed to give the GOP any real electoral boost after it was passed in 2017.
'Voters are clear about what they want: Lower prices, better jobs, vital programs protected and expanded, and for the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes,' Pancotti said. 'And yet, Republicans in both chambers of Congress are working overtime to achieve the exact opposite.'
Around the World
Bloomberg: 'UK House Prices Rose in January in Rush to Beat Tax Deadline.'
Financial Times: 'Advisers urge wealthy Britons to consider life assurance to reduce IHT.'
The Connexion: 'More drivers to pay higher pollution taxes on new car registrations in France
Around the Nation
Oklahoma Voice: 'Oklahoma legislative leaders hesitant to cut income tax.'
Oregon Public Broadcasting: 'Oregon House GOP calls for tax cuts, housing fix. But Democrats hold the cards.'
Montana Free Press: 'Lawmakers ponder bills aimed at narrowing ag property tax loopholes.'
Also Worth Your Time
Stat News: 'Hospitals could be Congress' next target as GOP looks to extend Trump's tax cuts.'
Bloomberg: 'Trump's Sports Taxes Could Target Team Owners Worth $869 Billion.'
From the efficiency beat: 'Musk says Treasury, DOGE instituting reporting changes to all government payments.'
Did you know?
'The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars' was Bowie's second highest-selling album, behind 'Let's Dance.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers

Associated Press

time21 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers

TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5% - 25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.

Oil prices down, markets assess U.S.-China trade talks outcome
Oil prices down, markets assess U.S.-China trade talks outcome

CNBC

time26 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Oil prices down, markets assess U.S.-China trade talks outcome

Oil prices fell in early trade on Wednesday as markets were assessing the outcome of U.S.-China trade talks, yet to be reviewed by President Donald Trump, with weak oil demand from China and OPEC+ production increases weighing on the market. Brent crude futures lost 24 cents, or 0.36%, to trade at $66.63 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude fell 21 cents, or 0.32%, to $64.77 at 0119 GMT. U.S. and Chinese officials agreed on a framework to put their trade truce back on track and resolve China's export restrictions on rare earth minerals and magnets, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Tuesday at the conclusion of two days of intense negotiations in London. Trump will be briefed on the outcome before approving it, Lutnick added. "In terms of what it means for crude oil, I think it removes some downside risks, particularly to the Chinese economy and steadies the ship for the U.S. economy - both of which should be supportive for crude oil demand and the price," said Tony Sycamore, a market analyst for IG. Oil import data from China earlier this week and ongoing production increases from OPEC+, which includes the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies such as Russia, were adding to the downside. OPEC+ plans to increase oil production by 411,000 barrels per day for July as it looks to unwind production cuts for a fourth straight month. Meanwhile, China's customs data showed this week the country, the world's biggest oil importer, brought in 46.60 million tonnes of crude oil in May, down 3% from the previous month, with imports of oil products falling by 12.9%. Later on Wednesday, markets will be focusing on the weekly U.S. oil inventories report from the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy. Analysts polled by Reuters expect U.S. crude oil stockpiles fell by 2 million barrels in the week to June 6, while distillate and gasoline inventories likely rose. Their estimates are for a bigger decline in crude stocks than figures from American Petroleum Institute showed. The API reported on Tuesday that crude stocks fell by 370,000 barrels last week, sources said on condition of anonymity.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store