House budget chair blasts Senate resolution as ‘unserious and disappointing'
House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) on Saturday blasted the Senate's budget resolution, passed by the upper chamber only hours before, as 'unserious and disappointing.'
Arrington criticized the budget plan for 'creating $5.8 trillion in new costs and a mere $4 billion in enforceable cuts' or 'less than one day's worth of borrowing by the federal government.'
The Texas lawmaker also took a shot at Senate Budget Committee Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) plan to score the cost of extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts as not adding future federal deficits, something Graham would achieve by judging an extension of those cuts on a 'current policy' baseline.
He said the blueprint 'sets a dangerous precedent by direct scoring tax policy without including enforceable offsets.'
'We are at a fiscal inflection point and failure to rein in our runaway deficit spending and unsustainable debt could prove catastrophic for our economy, security and global leadership,' Arrington added in his statement.
The House GOP chair's shot-across-the-bow response to the passage of the Senate budget marks the start of a difficult negotiation on a budget reconciliation package that would enact President Trump's legislative agenda.
Senate Republicans passed their budget resolution shortly after 2:30 a.m. Saturday by a 51-48 vote.
Moderate Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who stated her concerns about potential cuts to Medicaid benefits, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who balked at a provision raising the federal debt limit, both voted against it.
Graham has defended his plan to use a current-policy baseline to score an extension of tax cuts as not adding to the deficit by arguing that would allow Senate Republicans to make those tax rates 'permanent.'
The Senate's Byrd Rule prohibits legislation passed under the budget reconciliation process from adding to the deficit in the years beyond the 10-year budget window.
The House must adopt the budget resolution passed by the Senate Saturday morning to unlock the budget reconciliation process, which would allow Republicans to pass Trump's legislative agenda through the Senate with a simple-majority vote and avoid a Democratic filibuster.
If the House makes any changes to the Senate-passed budget before approving it, the measure would have to go back to the upper chamber for another debate and late-night series of amendment votes.
The budget resolution has drawn sharp criticism from other House conservatives.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said he would oppose passage of the Senate budget resolution in the House.
'If the Senate can deliver real deficit reduction in line with or greater than the House goals, I can support the Senate budget resolution,' Harris said in a post on social platform X. 'However, by the Senate setting committee instructions so low at $4 billion compared to the House's $1.5-2 trillion, I am unconvinced that will happen.'
'The Senate is free to put pen to paper to draft its reconciliation bill, but I can't support House passage of the Senate changes to our budget resolution until I see the actual spending and deficit reduction plans to enact President Trump's America First agenda,' he added.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), another prominent fiscal hawk and member of the Freedom Caucus, also vowed to oppose the bill.
'If the Senate's 'Jekyll and Hyde' budget is put on the House floor, I will vote no,' he wrote on X.
He added that the 'Senate's budget presents a fantastic top-line message — that we should return spending back to the pre-COVID trajectory' it proposes 'ZERO enforcement to achieve it, and plenty of signals that it is designed purposefully NOT to achieve it.'
Roy also argued that while the House budget meanwhile lays out a floor of $200 billion in spending reductions.
'That 'floor' establishes important guardrails to force Congress to pump the brakes on runaway spending and to achieve critical reforms to badly broken Medicaid, food stamp and welfare programs currently being abused to subsidize illegals, the able-bodied and blue states.'
Roy declared the Senate's budget is a 'path to failure.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is flirting with strikes in Iran. That could be a tough sell at home.
For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world's problems are not necessarily ours. Iran could be about to test that. President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel's attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon, he wrote on Truth Social that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an 'easy target,' and said, 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' These comments came as CNN reported he's indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump has saber-rattled for effect before, so it's possible this is him employing the 'madman theory' of foreign policy again. But it's also evident that we're closer to a major new military confrontation than we've been in two decades. So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It's complicated. Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions. Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances. A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. American voters favored that 53% to 30% – a 23-point margin. The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disputed Gabbard's account on Tuesday, but it's not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That's particularly because America's last major military foray, into neighboring Iraq, became so unpopular due how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed. Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being. Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis: The same Fox poll showed 57% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans called Iran a 'real national security threat.' A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least 'very' concerned about Iran getting a nuke. And Gallup polling last year showed 93% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a 'critical threat' to the vital interests of the United States. But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high. Pew Research Center polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64%) and Russia (59%) were major military threats than Iran (42%). Pew data last year also found only 37% of Americans said limiting Iran's power and influence should be a 'top priority.' It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China's power and about the same as North Korea's – while also falling below limiting climate change. And back in 2020, just 14% of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64%), while 17% said it wasn't a threat. All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it's likely we'd see these numbers polarize. But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon — in contrast to Israeli warnings — but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported Tuesday. Trump's history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favor of the strike. But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made us less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42%. All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don't have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump's Iran policies. The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don't necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear. But it doesn't mean you think that's imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm's way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today. And there's plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.
Time Magazine
31 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What to Know About the Trump Administration's Reversal on ICE Raids Guidance
U.S. immigration officials will continue conducting immigration raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, marking an apparently rapid reversal of guidance issued last week to exempt those worksites from the Trump Administration's mass deportations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials told staff in a call on Monday that agents must conduct raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, two people with knowledge of the call told The Washington Post. Multiple news outlets, including CNN and Reuters, have since confirmed the news. 'There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE's efforts,' Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Post. 'Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.' Trump's pledge to 'protect our Farmers' President Donald Trump has launched a mass-deportation operation since he took office for a second time in January, sparking outrage from Democratic lawmakers and prompting thousands of demonstrators to take to the streets to protest ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants. Trump has recently faced backlash from agriculture and hospitality executives over his hardline immigration agenda, the Post reported. On Thursday, he posted on Truth Social that 'changes are coming.' 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump said in his post. 'In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!' What changed—or didn't Despite the public pledge, a White House official told the Post at the time that the White House hadn't proposed any real policy changes. But three U.S. officials familiar with the situation told The New York Times that the Administration had instructed ICE officials to mostly halt raids and arrests at those worksites. 'Effective today, please hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels,' Tatum King, a senior ICE official, said in an email that was sent out as guidance to regional leaders of the branch of ICE that typically works on criminal investigations, as reported by the Times. Monday's reversal of that guidance comes after Trump posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he wants to 'expand efforts to detain and deport illegal Aliens in America's largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside.'
CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
Senate passes first-of-its-kind cryptocurrency legislation
The Senate passed first-of-its-kind bipartisan cryptocurrency legislation, called the GENIUS Act, after months of negotiations and weeks of back-and-forth between Democratic and Republican backers. The final tally was 68-30, with 18 Democrats voting yes, and two Republicans voting no. The bill now moves to the House for consideration. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer has called for the chamber's Financial Services Committee to advance stablecoin legislation by the end of July. The GENIUS Act aims to regulate stablecoin, a specific type of cryptocurrency that is tied to the US dollar. Despite bipartisan senators working on this bill for months, and general agreement across the Capitol that stablecoin regulation is necessary, the legislation has become a flashpoint for Democratic concerns with President Donald Trump's own cryptocurrency dealings. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, has consistently warned that the bill does not place sufficient guardrails on stablecoin, and alleged that the GENIUS Act would 'supercharge' corruption. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut has agreed that the bill needs stricter ethics guidelines, telling CNN's Dana Bash previously, 'If Congress passes a bill in the next few weeks that exempts the president of the United States from the ethics requirements around the issuance of cryptocurrency, then, yes, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for this, at least this, specific kind of corruption.' However, GOP Sen. Bill Hagerty, one of the lead co-sponsors of the bill, has insisted that 'this legislation is agnostic as to company, it's agnostic as to person.' 'This is simply about putting the United States of America on the best digital payments path that it possibly could be on,' the Tennessee Republican told reporters at the Capitol in May. 'This is about a payments currency, and it's about consumer protection, and it's about dollar dominance and Treasury dominance – that's all it's about. And there are a lot of superfluous questions going around but I think we've done a good job of answering those.' The Senate originally failed to advance the package after Democrats withheld their support due to concerns over Trump's cryptocurrency deals. Further bipartisan negotiations resulted in a new amendment draft that garnered enough support among Democrats to move the package forward.
