Factbox-What's in the Republican tax and health plan - and what is not
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Republicans in the U.S. Congress have released initial drafts of a sweeping budget package that would fulfill President Donald Trump's calls to cut taxes and reduce spending, though many details still need to be resolved.
Here is a summary of what they have proposed and what they have left out at this point. Budgetary estimates cover the next 10 years and are provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.
TAXES
WHAT'S IN
Makes permanent the lower income tax rates in Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that are currently due to expire at the end of 2025.
Boosts the standard deduction by an additional $1,000 to $1,500 until 2029.
Extends increased alternative minimum tax and the enhanced deduction for "pass-through" businesses, such as sole proprietorships.
Expands the Child Tax Credit to $2,500 from $1,000 until 2029, and keeps it at $2,000 after that, indexed to inflation.
Raises the estate tax exemption from $14 million to $15 million.
Extends tax breaks for multinational corporations.
TOTAL COST: $4.9 trillion
WHAT'S NOT INCLUDED
Not all elements of the plan are final, but initial proposals do not include Trump's suggestion to raise the top income tax rate on the highest-earning Americans, deductions for state and local taxes or address Trump's campaign promises to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits.
MEDICAID
WHAT'S IN
Requires able-bodied adults who have no dependents to work, volunteer or be in school at least 80 hours a month.
Bolsters verification efforts that check whether participants and healthcare providers are eligible for Medicaid. Blocks regulations that make it easier to enroll.
Excludes non-citizens from the program and penalizes states that use their own funds to provide coverage to illegal immigrants.
Blocks regulations that required minimum staffing levels at nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.
Prohibits funding for gender transition therapies for minors.
Prohibits payments to large providers like Planned Parenthood that specialize in birth control, abortion and other reproductive health services.
Limits state taxes on providers that are used to raise the federal government's contribution.
WHAT'S NOT INCLUDED
Reduced payments to states that expanded eligibility under the Affordable Care Act.
Changes to the way the federal government helps states pay for the program.
TOTAL SAVINGS: $715 billion.
CBO estimated that these changes would reduce enrollment in Medicaid by at least 8.6 million people 10 years from now. Medicaid currently covers about 71 million people.
ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS
Cancels funding for green-energy grant programs in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, including vehicle manufacturing, home efficiency upgrades, electricity transmission, wind power.
Creates incentives for pipelines, natural gas exports and exploration.
Repeals grant programs for purchasing electric heavy-duty vehicles.
Repeals grants to reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions.
Repeals fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and pickup trucks.
Makes more electromagnetic spectrum bands for communication available for auction.
Prohibits states from regulating artificial intelligence.
TOTAL SAVINGS: $197 billion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
30 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Europe's Exporters Feel the Chill From Trump Tariffs
Europe's exports dropped sharply in April as demand was squeezed by President Trump's tariff increases, leading to a fall in factory output that suggests economic growth has slowed after a strong start to the year. European Union exports fell by close to 10% compared with a month earlier, a dramatic reversal from the increase in March as American importers stocked up ahead of Trump's tariff announcement.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chart: Hundreds of gigawatts of clean energy at risk with GOP bill
See more from Canary Media's "Chart of the week' column. Amid rising power bills and surging energy demand, Republicans in Congress are set to undermine the country's primary source of new electricity — clean energy. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' passed in May by House Republicans and now being considered by the Senate would rapidly phase out key clean-energy tax credits, casting uncertainty over more than 600 gigawatts' worth of solar, battery, and wind projects slated to come online in 2028 or later, according to new analysis from research firm Cleanview. To be fair, the 600-GW figure is based on what's currently in the interconnection queue, and a good number of those projects won't get built regardless of the fate of the tax credits. (Projects often drop out of the queue for all kinds of reasons.) But if the bill kneecaps even a fraction of what's anticipated, it will have serious consequences for the U.S. energy system. For context, the entirety of the U.S. had a generating capacity of around 1,200 gigawatts at the end of 2023. The current version of the legislation would rapidly phase out federal tax credits that encourage clean energy development. As it stands, developers would be eligible for the tax credit only if their projects begin construction within 60 days of the bill's passage and if they come online before the end of 2028. That puts the 318 GW worth of projects planned to be completed in 2029 and later at explicit risk of losing their tax-credit eligibility. It also jeopardizes 2028 projects that either can't break ground with just two months' notice or which might hit snags that push their completion into 2029. That doesn't necessarily mean those projects would be cancelled, but it would scramble their economics, which were calculated under an entirely different set of policy assumptions. It's near certain that some would fall through. Many more would be delayed as developers hash out new financial terms — read: higher power prices that will be passed onto consumers. A slowdown in clean energy construction is the exact opposite of what the moment demands. These days, when a new energy project is built in the U.S., more than nine times out of 10 it is a solar, battery, or wind installation. That's not an exaggeration. In 2024, solar, batteries, and wind made up 93% of new energy resources. The year before that, it was 94%. Meanwhile, construction of new large-scale fossil-gas power plants is constrained by turbine shortages that are unlikely to ease in the near term. At the same time, electricity demand is surging and expected to climb even higher in coming years as the development of AI sets off a race to construct power-hungry data centers. If congressional Republicans pass a bill that stifles solar, batteries, and wind, study after study predicts the same outcome: higher energy bills — and more planet-warming emissions.
