Rick Scott wants more cuts in Trump's signature domestic tax and spending bill
Florida U.S. GOP Sen. Rick Scott speaking in Clearwater on May 28, 2025. (Photo by Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix)
Rick Scott has always been a deficit hawk, sometimes to his political peril, so it's no surprise that he's among a group of Republican U.S. senators seeking significant changes to President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.'
The budget and tax bill passed the GOP-controlled U.S. House of Representatives by a single vote last week.
'The package that just passed the House will take the deficit in 10 years from $37 trillion to close to $60 trillion,' Scott said Wednesday in Clearwater after holding a press conference on hurricane preparedness.
'We're already spending more than 20% of your revenues that you're going to give us, in your tax dollars, to interest. That's not sustainable.'
The Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania Budget Model estimates that passage of the legislation as its written right now would raise the federal deficit by more than $3 trillion over the next 10 years. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, disputes that calculation, insisting the bill 'saves' more than $1.6 trillion in mandatory spending.
Scott's concerns about federal spending led to his '12-point plan to Rescue America' that he unveiled in 2022 when he served as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
The plan called for sunsetting all federal legislation every five years, including Social Security and Medicare — a proposal so unpopular that it was opposed by then GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and mocked by President Joe Biden, ultimately leading the Florida Republican to remove those two major entitlement programs from his proposal.
Scott praised the House for passing the bill last week, and emphasized that 'I completely agree with President Trump's agenda,' which he said included securing the southern border, building up the military, and making the 2017 tax cuts, which are set to expire later this year, permanent. 'Those are all things that we ought to do,' he said.
Scott was re-elected to the Senate last year over Democratic challenger Debbie Mucarsel-Powell by 13 points, by far his largest margin of victory in his four statewide races in Florida over the past 14 years, with the three previous races all decided by a margin of one percentage point or less.
Scott said that Congress needs to continue to work on reducing federal spending.
'We had a 53% increase in spending in five years, a 53% increase,' he said. 'Population's only up 2%. There's probably a little bit of waste in there. So I think we need to go back to pre-pandemic spending.'
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been critical of the tax and spending package, noting his disappointment that the budget cuts made by Elon Musk and his 'Department of Government Efficiency' this year that were not included in the House bill.
'To see Republicans in Congress cast aside any meaningful reductions (and in fact, fully fund things like USAID) is demoralizing and represents a betrayal of the voters who elected him,' the governor said on X on Tuesday.
But as Scott noted Wednesday, under Senate rules, only mandatory spending can be placed in a reconciliation bill, which is what is what the House passed last week. DOGE cuts are considered discretionary spending.
'DOGE has shown us that there's a lot of waste in the [budget], so we've got to do both of these,' Scott said. 'If we don't, here's what's going to happen. Interest rates are not going to come down. If we keep borrowing $2 trillion every year, inflation's not going away, interest rates are not coming down. Just this year, we need to refinance over $9 trillion worth of Treasuries and sell another $2 trillion.'
Separately, the White House is expected to send its 'rescission package' to the House soon, which will include the DOGE cuts, House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Wednesday.
Scott says that he's going to work hard to find cuts in the tax and spending package, and is confident he'll be able to pass the legislation when it's ready to go sometime later this summer.
'We'll get a bill done,' he said. 'The goal is to get it done by the 4th of July. We have to get it done probably by the end of July because of the debt ceiling, but I think the bill will pass.'
Every Democratic member of the House opposed the spending and tax package last week, and are highlighting major cuts to Medicaid and food assistance as a reason why the public should oppose it as well.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DeepState: Russians capture new territory near Oleksandriia in Sumy Oblast
DeepState, a Ukrainian group of military analysts, has reported that Russian forces have advanced near the village of Oleksandriia in Sumy Oblast. Source: DeepState Details: As of 30 May, territory near Oleksandriia, close to the Russian border, is partly designated as occupied and partly as a grey zone. Situation near Oleksandriia as of 30 May Photo: DeepStateMap As of 29 May, the situation was different: there was almost no occupied territory, while some areas across the border were marked as under Ukrainian control. Situation near Oleksandriia as of 29 May Photo: DeepStateMap Therefore, another stretch of Russian-controlled territory has expanded in Sumy Oblast, in addition to the Zhuravka-Novenke-Veselivka-Basivka area. Situation near Oleksandriia as of 30 May Photo: DeepStateMap DeepState also reported that Russian troops had occupied the settlement of Yelyzavetivka in Donetsk Oblast. Background: On 31 May, Oleksandr Syrskyi, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, reported that Russian forces had become significantly more active on the Zaporizhzhia front and focused their efforts on the border area of Sumy Oblast. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pritzker to consider Illinois bill mandating gun owners lock up firearms
A bill that would require gun owners to keep any firearms in a locked box whenever a minor is present will soon head to Gov. JB Pritzker. Senate Bill 8, also referred to as the Safe Gun Storage Act, is the latest gun safety measure pushed by Democrats in the General Assembly. It passed the House 69-40, with Republican lawmakers warning that it could be found unconstitutional if challenged in court. The bill mandates that gun owners store their firearms in a secure, locked box in any place where they know or 'reasonably should know' that a minor without permission to access a firearm, an at-risk person or someone who is prohibited from obtaining a firearm can access the weapon. Gun owners who violate the act would be subject to civil penalties. The law would apply to both handguns and long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Under the state's current criminal code, firearm owners are required to store their guns in a place that's inaccessible to a child under the age of 14 – SB8 raises the age requirement to a child under 18 and mandates that the gun must be locked away or equipped with a device making it temporarily inoperable. It also defines an at-risk person as someone who has shown behavior or made statements that a 'reasonable person' would consider indicative that the individual may physically harm themselves or others. 'An estimated 30 million children in our country live in a home with at least one firearm, with 4.6 million children living in homes with unlocked and loaded guns,' bill sponsor in the House, Rep. Maura Hirschauer, D-Batavia, said during floor debate. 'We are all familiar with the chilling statistics that guns are the No. 1 cause of death for our children in the United States.' The bill exempts firearms carried on a person who has a concealed carry license. The gun owner also would not be liable if a minor, at-risk or prohibited person uses the firearm in self-defense or uses it after accessing it illegally – for instance, in circumstances like breaking and entering. The Safe Gun Storage Act also makes changes to a variety of existing Illinois gun laws, including a mandate that firearm owners report a lost or stolen firearm within 48 hours of the owner finding the firearm missing, instead of the current 72-hour timeframe. Illinois State Police would also be given the ability to revoke a firearm owner's identification, or FOID, card if a gun owner fails to report a stolen or lost firearm twice or more under the bill. If a minor, at-risk or prohibited person gains access to an unlocked firearm, the bill provides the gun owner could face civil penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 if the gun to hurt or kill another person in a crime. A separate section of the bill allows for a $1,000 fine and a Class C misdemeanor charge against a gun owner if a minor under the age of 18 causes death or bodily harm while accessing a firearm without permission. That language previously only applied to minors under the age of 14. 'Safe firearms storage and responsible gun ownership are practices on which all of us in this room, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, can agree,' Hirschauer said. 'Safe gun storage can reduce unintentional injuries, suicides and intentional harm, like school shootings, by stopping unauthorized access.' Under SB8, if a firearm owner fails to store their firearm in a secure, locked box and a minor, at-risk or prohibited person illegally obtains the firearm and uses it to hurt themselves or others – the owner could be charged with negligence. The Safe Gun Storage Act also requires Illinois State Police to expand an online database that was required under a previous law to house all information on the make, model and serial number of reported lost or stolen firearms. By Jan. 1, 2027, ISP would have to make the portal accessible to licensed firearm dealers, who would be required to cross-reference the database to ensure any firearms they are selling or transferring are not a firearm listed in the database. Another aspect of the bill classifies anyone traveling through the state with a firearm that's prohibited under state law as gun trafficking – a felony charge that can result in up to a 15-year prison sentence. During debate about the bill on the Senate floor in April, Sen. Neil Anderson, R-Andalusia, took issue with the bill giving Illinois State Police the ability to revoke a person's FOID card. He said that aspect of the bill would not pass the Rahimi test – referencing the 2023 United States v. Rahimi Supreme Court case, which ruled a court can temporarily revoke a perron's firearm rights if the court determines the firearm owner is a threat to public safety when in possession of a firearm. SB8 would allow Illinois State Police to revoke a person's FOID card, which Anderson said is in direct conflict with the Rahimi decision – which said only courts had the power to revoke a person's firearm rights. Bill sponsor Sen. Laura Ellman, D-Naperville, disagreed with Anderson, saying the Rahimi case did not exclude law enforcement from being able to revoke a person's FOID card. The bill passed the Senate on a vote of 33-19. A similar debate happened on the House floor Wednesday before the bill's eventual passage. Rep. Patrick Windhorst, R-Metropolis, took issue with the bill's creation of a potential negligence charge for gun owners who do not safely secure a gun that's used by a minor, at-risk or prohibited person to harm someone. He said he believed such a burden shift to be unconstitutional. Hirschauer responded that the burden shift only applies when the reasonable standard is met – when it's reasonably found that the gun owner should have known to safely store their firearm – or, if 'some terrible negligence' occurs. Windhorst also raised concerns about the fact that cable locks, which are locked cables inserted through a firearm's chamber and out of the magazine well, are not considered 'safe storage' under the bill. Under existing law about storing guns away from minors, a cable lock is considered safe storage of a firearm. Windhorst said that conflicts with the new language pertaining to gun storage, which does not mention devices that render a gun temporarily inoperable. 'Under the criminal code of this bill where we are changing our current child access protection law, a cable lock would suffice,' Hirschauer said. 'Under the new Safe Storage Act, it would not.' He also argued that the bill impeded the rights of concealed carry license holders who carry a gun in a vehicle, as some firearms owners currently store their gun in the center console or glove box. Under the Safe Gun Storage Act, the center console or glove box would have to be lockable in order to render the firearm safely stored. Windhorst also voiced concerns that the gun trafficking charges in the bill could be brought against a person passing through Illinois with firearms in their vehicle that are legal in their home state – a point which Hirschauer responded to by reading language in the bill that expressly excluded non-residents from the charges. 'If someone is a non-resident of Illinois and is passing through and they are a legal gun owner in the state in which they reside, if that state doesn't have a FOID card system and if they are authorized under federal law to own a gun, then they would not be subject to this,' she said. Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer, R-Murrayville, raised concerns about the bill's definition of 'lawful permission' and its limitations on minors who hunt. The bill requires firearm owners to safely secure their firearm in a locked box when around a minor who does not have 'lawful permission' from a parent or guardian to access a firearm. On the House floor, Davidsmeyer asked what constitutes 'lawful permission,' to which Hirschauer answered it, 'could be several things.' When asked whether permission must be written down or notarized for parental permission of a minor using a firearm to hunt to be considered lawful, Hirschauer answered that 'hypothetical points are fact dependent.' Davidsmeyer said the question was not a hypothetical, and that it is an issue that will crop up in 'daily life' for minors who hunt. 'This bill, I believe, violates recent Supreme Court decisions under the Second Amendment and will likely be found unconstitutional,' Windhorst said at the end of debate. Hirschauer disagreed. 'Firearm theft compromises the effectiveness of our commonsense gun laws and often results in these weapons being acquired by people who are legally prohibited from possessing them,' she said. 'The reporting measures strengthened in this bill will give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on lost and stolen guns.' Opponents to SB8 include the ACLU of Illinois, Illinois State Rifle Association and the Illinois State Crime Commissions; the Illinois State Police did not officially oppose or support the bill. SB8 passed the Senate 33-19 last month and awaits approval from the governor before it can become law. Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors
Winston Churchill once warned that 'appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.' When it comes to the crocodile of censorship, history is strewn with defenders who later became digestives. Censorship produces an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech limits, and today's censorship supporters often become tomorrow's censored subjects. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped feeding the crocodile. On May 28, 2025, Rubio shocked many of our allies by issuing a new visa restriction policy that bars foreign nationals deemed 'responsible for censorship of protected expression' in the U.S. The new policy follows a major address by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich challenging our European allies to end their systematic attacks on free speech. Vance declared, 'If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.' At the time, I called the speech 'Churchillian' in drawing a bright line for the free world. Rubio's action is no less impressive and even more impactful. Europe has faced no consequences for its aggressive efforts at transnational censorship. Indeed, this should not be a fight for the administration alone. Congress should explore reciprocal penalties for foreign governments targeting American companies or citizens for engaging in protected speech. After Vance spoke in Munich, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year's forum embraced the slogan 'A New World Order with European Values.' That 'new world order' is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union. At the heart of this effort is the Digital Services Act, a draconian law that allows for sweeping censorship and speech prosecutions. Most importantly, it has been used by the EU to threaten American corporations for their failure to censor Americans and others on social media sites. After the World Forum, I returned home to warn that this is now an existential war over a right that defines us as a people —the very 'Indispensable Right' identified by Justice Louis Brandeis, which is essential for every other right in the Constitution. The irony was crushing. I wrote about how this nation has fought to protect our rights in world wars, yet many in Congress simply shrug or even support the effort as other countries move to make Americans censor other Americans. What was most unnerving about Berlin was how Americans have encouraged Europeans to target their fellow citizens. At the forum was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter on a pledge to dismantle its massive censorship system, called upon the EU to use the Digital Services Act to force him to resume censorship. Other Americans have appeared before the EU to call upon it to oppose the U.S. Nina Jankowicz, the former head of President Joe Biden's infamous Disinformation Governance Board, has recently returned to he EU to rally other nations to oppose what she described as 'the autocracy, the United States of America.' She warned that the Digital Services Act was under attack, and that the EU had to fight and beat the U.S.: 'Do not capitulate. Hold the line.' Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton even threatened Musk for interviewing Trump before our last presidential election. He told Musk that he was being 'monitored' in conducting any interview with now-President Trump. The EU is doubling down on these efforts, including threatening Musk with prosecution and massive confiscatory fines if he does not resume censoring users of X. The penalties are expected to exceed $1 billion. Other countries are following suit. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes shut down X in his entire country over Musk's refusal to remove political posts. These countries could remotely control speech within the U.S., forcing companies like X to meet the lowest common denominator set by the EU and anti-free speech groups. There are free speech concerns even in such measures designed to protect free speech. This policy should be confined to government officials, particularly EU officials, who are actively seeking to export European censorship systems worldwide. It should not extend to academics or individuals who are part of the growing anti-free speech movement. Free speech itself can counter those voices. These are the same voices that we have heard throughout history, often using the very same terms and claims to silence others. However, Rubio showed Europe that the U.S. would not simply stand by as European censors determined what Americans could say, read, or watch. As the EU threatens companies like X with billion-dollar fines, it is time for the U.S. to treat this as an attack on our citizens from abroad. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it simply during World War II: 'No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.' It is time to get serious about the European threat to free speech. And Rubio is doing just that — finally imposing real consequences for censorship. We are not going to defeat censors by yelling at them. Speech alone clearly does not impress them. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
