Texas lawmaker plans to re-file hospital bollard bill despite ‘very aggressive' lobbying
This story is part of KXAN's 'Preventing Disaster' investigation, which initially published on May 15, 2024. The project follows a fatal car crash into an Austin hospital's emergency room earlier that year. Our team took a broader look at safety concerns with that crash and hundreds of others across the nation – including whether medical sites had security barriers – known as bollards – at their entrances. Experts say those could stop crashes from happening.
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Despite a 'VERY aggressive lobbying effort' by the Texas Hospital Association to kill a bill aimed at preventing vehicle crashes at emergency entrances — following last year's deadly crash at St. David's North Austin Medical Center — a state senator is pledging to refile the same safety measure next session, according to a senior staffer.
Senate Bill 660, sparked by a KXAN investigation, sought to require crash-rated vertical barriers, called bollards, at Texas hospital entrances. The proposal was supported by the Texas Nurses Association, which said 'all protections should be considered' to ensure healthcare workers are safe and protected.
It passed the Senate but stalled in a House committee despite a last-minute amendment to only require bollards at new hospitals in cities with a population of 1.2 million or greater.
'I am disappointed that Senate Bill 660 died in the House Public Health Committee, especially after we took so many suggestions from stakeholders on modifying the legislation,' said the bill's author, Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, who called the bollard requirement 'common-sense public safety legislation.'
On Feb. 13, 2024, a drunk driver drove into the lobby of St. David's North, running over all four members of the Bernard family, including their two toddlers. The driver, Michelle Holloway, 57, was killed. After the crash, the Bernards — who were seriously injured — spoke exclusively to KXAN about their ordeal and their goal moving forward.
'That no one will have to suffer like we do,' said Nadia Bernard, who was still in a wheelchair recovering at the time.
That plea led to a more than year-long KXAN investigation looking into crashes and finding solutions to prevent them. After surveying dozens of hospitals, watching bollard crash-tests at Texas A&M's Transportation Institute and learning about the strength of the security barriers, we were asked to share our findings with lawmakers as they considered SB 660, which would have required bollards at hospitals statewide.
'Without a uniform statewide approach, we found a patchwork system where some hospitals are protected while others remain vulnerable,' KXAN investigative reporter Matt Grant told a Senate panel.
EXPLORE: KXAN's 'Preventing Disaster' investigation into medical center crashes
Using data from the non-profit Storefront Safety council, TxDOT, police and media reports, we built our own nationwide database of crashes over the past decade.
We looked at places patients receive care, according to the state's definition of 'health care provider' that includes doctors, nurses, dentists and pharmacists, among others.
The result: By the start of the legislative session, we had identified more than 400 crashes since 2014 including more than 100 in Texas.
Months later, as we continued to track and collect data, the list of crashes into, or at, medical-related sites had expanded to more than 580. The majority were caused by drivers who were either hurt, intoxicated — like at St. David's — or had pressed the wrong foot pedal.
Nearly 160 of the crashes were at hospitals and almost half of those impacted the ER entrance area.
In all, we identified at least two dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries.
'I think you've built the best dataset in the country right now,' said Ware Wendell, a consumer and patient advocate with Texas Watch.
'So, it definitely informed the debate here in Texas,' Wendell added. 'And, I wouldn't be surprised if it informs the debate all around the country as hospitals evaluate how they are protecting folks inside of their emergency rooms.'
'I have to credit you, Matt, and your team at KXAN, for doing the deep dive, for digging into the data.
Ware Wendell, Texas Watch
Map of crashes that have occurred at or into Texas hospitals since 2014. Source: Texas Department of Transportation, media reports, Storefront Safety Council. (KXAN Interactive/Dalton Huey)
The Texas Hospital Association, which represents 85% of the state's acute-care hospitals and health care systems, testified against SB 660.
'Singling out hospital emergency rooms to install bollards would not prevent, based on the statistics we're aware of, the overwhelming majority of these types of accidents because they simply don't occur in hospitals,' THA General Counsel Steve Wohleb told lawmakers in March, referring to a majority of crashes occurring at business storefronts.
Behind the scenes, sources tell KXAN the industry group lobbied heavily against the proposal.
In a memo sent to hospitals around the state that we obtained, the THA criticized KXAN for including other medical centers in our data, not just hospitals, and, citing autonomy and cost as a factor, called the bill an 'unfunded mandate, without evidence-based support.'
'I would question that,' said Thomas Ustach with the McCue Corporation. 'What is the cost of life safety?'
McCue is the same bollard-making company that allowed KXAN to watch its crash tests in Texas last year. The company has installed security barriers at dozens of hospitals across the country.
The cost to secure an ER entrance, typically, is between $10,000 and $30,000, depending on how many bollards are needed, Ustach said.
A single crash-rated bollard, on average, costs around $1,500-$2,000 to purchase and install, he pointed out.
'It's really not a difficult or costly fix to the problem,' Ustach said. 'So, I'm surprised that there's so much pushback against the bill.'
Ustach said he's proud the crash-testing we witnessed last year could 'shine some light' — to the public and policymakers — on why, when it comes to bollards, testing and strict performance requirements are necessary.
'You can't leave it up to chance when you're talking life safety,' he added.
Today, the Bernard family is in the middle of a $1 million lawsuit against St. David's for not having bollards at the time. St. David's previously said it does not comment on litigation.
This isn't the first time a hospital's lack of protective barriers has been the focus of a lawsuit. In 2020, a driver lost control and drove into the patient entrance of Atlanta-based Piedmont Hospital. Several people were hit and a 55-year-old woman was killed. The lawsuit blamed the hospital for its 'failure to provide bollards or other barriers' outside of its ER.
Piedmont settled for an undisclosed amount and previously did not respond to KXAN's request for comment.
St. David's previously told us it installed $500,000 worth of bollards at its Austin-area hospitals after last year's deadly ER crash. However, it has repeatedly refused to say if any of those bollards are crash-rated.
When asked about the bollard bill not advancing, St. David's said it 'does not have anything to add to your story.'
This month, the hospital system admitted for the first time that it opposed Austin's ordinance, which passed nearly six months ago, requiring crash-rated bollards at new city hospitals.
'If these hospitals won't do it voluntarily, there must be laws to protect all families from this predictable and preventable destruction.'
The Bernard Family in a statement to KXAN
A spokesperson for St. David's said the opposition was due, in part, to a belief the measure 'selectively targeted healthcare facilities' based on an incident at one of its hospitals.
'Our family is very disappointed that this common sense, statewide public safety bollard bill was killed by hospital special interests,' the Bernard family told KXAN.
'We are so grateful that Austin bravely acted to pass protective bollard legislation and know this proactive law will eventually pass at the statewide level,' the family added.
Former Austin City Council Member Mackenzie Kelly said she is 'incredibly proud' of the local bollard ordinance she initiated. She hopes it serves as a model for other communities.
'While I'm disappointed that SB 660 did not make it out of the House Public Health Committee this session, I remain hopeful and encouraged,' Kelly said. 'Austin led the way by acting before tragedy struck again, and I firmly believe this idea's time will come at the statewide level.'
'Protecting patients, emergency personnel, and hospital visitors should never be a partisan issue — it's a matter of life safety,' she added, saying she looks forward to supporting the measure again next session.
The chair of the House Public Health Committee, Rep. Gary VanDeaver, R-New Boston, gave the bill a hearing but did not bring it back up again for a vote, allowing it to die.
His office, and the Texas Hospital Association, did not respond to a request for comment.
Graphic Artist Wendy Gonzalez, Director of Investigations and Innovation Josh Hinkle, Investigative Producer Dalton Huey, Investigative Photojournalist Chris Nelson and Digital Director Kate Winkle contributed to this report.
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
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Education advocates press Senate for changes to Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
House Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' doubles down on President Trump's education agenda, including raising taxes on university endowments and overhauling the student loan program, even as colleges are already feeling a funding pinch and borrower defaults are on the rise. Advocates are hoping to seize on the opportunity to have the legislation reformed in the Senate, where GOP moderates and conservatives are calling for significant — and sometimes contradictory — changes. Education experts warn that in its current form the package, which also boosts student vouchers and gives a tax break to religious colleges, will financially cripple student loan borrowers and universities alike. 'The major takeaway is that this bill is going to make paying for college and paying off student loans more expensive and more risky for millions of students and working families with student debt,' said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for Student Borrower Protection Center. Student loan borrowers have faced a whirlwind in policy shifts between former President Biden and President Trump, but the current budget reconciliation bill would be an earthquake to the 45 million Americans with student debt. It would reshape repayment options, only offering one income-driven repayment plan or a standard repayment plan; all other options would be terminated. Advocates fear significant increases in monthly payment as more generous repayment plans disappear at a time when default rates are already going up. 'It's very bad for borrowers. I don't want to sugar coat it, you know, it's not looking good,' said Natalia Abrams at the Student Debt Crisis Center. 'It will lengthen the time for undergrads from 20 years to 30 years' to receive debt forgiveness after consistent payments, she added. 'For grad students, from 25 to 30 years. It's really unfortunate that this bill passed, especially by one vote' in the House. The package also intends to end Parent PLUS loans, limit how much federal student loan debt an individual can take out and changes eligibility to Pell Grants. The maximum an undergraduate student could take out is $50,000, with parents able to match the amount. For Pell Grants, the number of credits needed to qualify will increase. Other changes include eliminating subsidized loans. 'One of our big worries is that there will be borrower confusion amidst this return to repayment and with servicers potentially needing to implement, if this reconciliation bill goes through, a new income driven repayment plan that departs significantly from any IDR plan that has come before. And so, I think that borrower confusion is a big problem for policymakers,' said Sameer Gadkaree, president and CEO of the Institute for College Access & Success. Republicans and conservatives have cheered the legislation as a way to simplify student loan repayments and ensure those who did not go to college do not pay off others' debt through their taxes. 'It's time we stopped asking taxpayers to foot the bill for our broken student loan system that has left borrowers in trillions of dollars of debt and has caused college costs to balloon,' said Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. 'It's time we stopped asking a factory worker in Michigan or a rancher in Texas to subsidize the student debt of a lawyer in Manhattan. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to end the status quo and get this bill to the president's desk,' he added. Colleges, already beset by the Trump administration, face a financial hit too: tax increases on their endowments ranging from 1 percent to 21 percent, with major universities such as Harvard and Yale at the top end. Those are an addition to the taxes on endowments passed in 2017 during Trump's first administration back. Before then, endowments were never taxed. 'We know that almost 50 percent of endowment spending goes to financial aid. If you add financial aid and academic programs, that's two-thirds of endowment spending, and so, if you take money away from the school, from its endowment resources, it's going to undermine their ability to provide robust financial aid. That's why we call it a scholarship tax, because that's what it is,' said Steven Bloom, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education. Despite Trump calling for Republicans to unite around the bill, some in the Senate are demanding changes before they'll give it their support. 'I've told them if they'll take the debt ceiling off of it, I'll consider voting for it,' said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The infighting has led to some optimism that there is still time to get some changes. 'It seems like folks in the Senate have a bit of heartburn about the level of cuts to the Pell program, and that there might be a discomfort in adopting what the House has put together on that front,' Canchola Bañez said. 'I would hope that senators would look at the ways in which the House proposal will make it significantly harder for folks to afford to repay their loans. And in a world where these policymakers want to ensure that student loan borrowers can repay their debts, we need to make sure that there are actual safeguards in place,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Illinois lawmakers pass budget with tax hikes on tobacco, gambling — but adjourn without transit, Bears stadium
SPRINGFIELD — Democratic state lawmakers voted late Saturday, just minutes before their midnight deadline, to send Gov. JB Pritzker the final piece of a $55 billion budget balanced with a combination of spending cuts and an estimated $800 million plus in tax increases, including hikes on tobacco products, vaping and online sportsbooks. The governor's office touted the spending plan as Pritzker's 'seventh consecutive balanced budget that continues to get the state's finances back on track.' The General Assembly adjourned its spring session without passing legislation to address the $771 million fiscal shortfall faced by Chicago-area mass transit, and also took no action on proposals to help the Bears relocate to a new stadium in the northwest suburbs. The session's final hours were marked by a rush to pass the budget and revenue package before June 1, when the required vote threshold rose to a three-fifths majority. Ultimately, House Democrats approved the three main components of the plan by that margin or greater. The $55.2 billion spending portion of the budget passed the House by a 75-41 margin, with two Democrats — Reps. Larry Walsh of Elwood and Stephanie Kifowit of Aurora — joining Republicans in opposition. A short time later, the Senate approved the measure on a 34-23 vote, two votes shy of what would have been needed after midnight. Four downstate and suburban Senate Democrats voted against the spending plan: Sens. Christopher Belt of Swansea, Suzy Glowiak Hilton of Western Springs, Mike Halpin of Rock Island and Doris Turner of Springfield. During the House debate, Rep. Dagmara Avelar, a Democrat from Bolingbrook and member of the legislative Latino Caucus, said she was supporting the plan even though it was 'not a perfect budget,' noting her opposition to the elimination of funding for a Medicaid-style program for noncitizens aged 42 through 64. 'In fact, it's painful. It eliminates a program that has been a lifeline for many, including people that I have fought alongside for years,' she said. 'But I'm voting 'yes' because leadership requires hard choices. And this budget protects more than it cuts.' Majority Leader Robyn Gabel of Evanston, the chief budget negotiator in the House, said the budget made $400 million in spending cuts, including $193 million in operational cuts across state agencies. A big reason for those reductions, she said, was the uncertainty over whether Republican President Donald Trump's administration would deprive Illinois of critical federal funding for Medicaid and in other areas. 'I want to emphasize that these were not decisions made lightly or made hastily. These are strategic efficiencies so we can invest in the needs of our working families and seniors on fixed incomes,' Gabel said. 'Of course, we do not know the full extent of the cuts Washington is preparing. But we do anticipate that health care access and infrastructure will be most directly impacted.' Pritzker also took shot at Trump in his post-budget statement. 'Even in the face of Trump and Congressional Republicans stalling the national economy, our state budget delivers for working families without raising their taxes while protecting the progress we are making for our long-term fiscal health,' Pritzker said in a statement. Illinois House passes bill allowing terminally ill people to end their lives with physician's helpRepublicans criticized what they called a bloated budget and said the Democrats' attempts to lay blame on Trump Republicans in Washington are misguided. 'The tax-and-spend Democrats … are so unfamiliar with cost-cutting, they call it chaos,' said GOP Rep. William Hauter of Morton. 'They wasted billions. And they are prepared to waste billions more. Wake up, Illinois. Vote 'no.'' Pointing to the $40 billion budget approved after Pritzker first took office in 2019 and last year's roughly $53 billion plan, Sen. Chapin Rose of Mahomet, a GOP budget negotiator, said Democrats must shoulder the blame for the state's fiscal issues. 'Let's be clear: $15 billion over six years, that's on you,' Rose said. '$2 billion increase over last year, that's on you. Billions of dollars in tax increases that are driving working families out of Illinois, that's on you.' Senate Republican leader John Curran of Downers Grove faulted Democrats for once again pushing their budget package through in the final hours of the legislature's spring session without sufficient time for review, particularly on the tax side of the ledger. Democrats 'introduced a bill, $880 million in tax increases, we were told — nearly $1 billion — and six short hours from introduction of what it was to passing in both the House and the Senate,' Curran said. 'That's not transparent. That's not being upfront with the people of Illinois.' Sen. Elgie Sims, Democrats' budget point person in the Senate, said, however, that the plan largely reflected what lawmakers had been discussing since Pritzker laid out his proposal in February. 'If there's one thing I do agree about with the other side of the aisle, it is that a budget is a statement of our priorities,' Sims said. 'And our priorities are being fiscally responsible, preparing for the future and facing the challenges that are coming our way head on.' Heeding Pritzker's warning that he would veto a plan that relied on increases to the state's sales or income taxes, legislators approved a package that would employ one-time tactics, such as an amnesty for delinquent tax filers. The revenue package also included increased taxes on tobacco products to 45% of the wholesale price. Starting in July, that higher tax will also apply to nicotine pouches, which have exploded in popularity in recent years, and e-cigarettes would be taxed at the same rate as other tobacco products for the first time. The revenue would go to tobacco health initiatives and the state's Medicaid program. Democrats also approved a new per-wager tax on online sportsbooks, which would generate an estimated $36 million. Overall, the spending and tax package would result in a slight surplus, Democrats said. Amid the late push to approve a tax-and-spending plan, the Senate also narrowly approved a proposal to overhaul governance and increase funding for Chicago-area mass transit. The plan included a $1.50 fee on retail deliveries, which replaced an earlier proposal to increase tolls on Chicago-area toll roads. But the House adjourned without taking up the measure, meaning the transit issue remains unresolved. A late push for legislation to aid the Chicago Bears with the team's proposed move to a new stadium in Arlington Heights failed to come to a vote in either chamber. The spending package Democrats approved stuck closely to the broad outlines Pritzker presented to lawmakers in February. However, with revenue projections for the budget year that begins July 1 dimming in the months since the governor made his proposal, legislators approved some new ideas to bring in more money, including changes that would allow Illinois to tax offshore and out-of-state corporate profits. One new funding stream would come from taxing 'large transnational corporations' that store assets overseas, Democratic Rep. Will Guzzardi of Chicago said. 'Those are the revenue sources we're contemplating to balance a budget that supports investments in children and families and seniors and people with disabilities,' he said. The budget package included a tax amnesty program aimed at boosting revenue that was part of Pritzker's proposal. The program is expected to bring in $228 million, Guzzardi said, which is $30 million above Pritzker's initial estimate. The spending proposal lawmakers approved, negotiated among the Democratic House and Senate leaders and the governor's office, deviates from Pritzker's original plan in certain areas, including funding for elementary and secondary education. Pritzker proposed a $350 million increase as required under a 2017 school funding overhaul. But the final plan would boost funding by only $307 million over the current year, cutting $43 million that normally would go to a grant program designed to help school districts with high property tax rates and low real estate values. The grant program was paused to provide 'the ability for us to have a study that talks about the efficacy of that program, making sure it is having the desired impact and reducing property taxes for hardworking homeowners across the state,' Sims said. Democrats managed to gather enough support for their plan despite ongoing tension over the elimination of funding for the health insurance program covering noncitizens ages 42 to 64. When Pritzker proposed the cut in February, his office estimated it would save the state about $330 million from its general fund. The approved budget would preserve the portion of the program for those 65 and older, allocating $110 million for their coverage. Eliminating funding for the younger group, which would end coverage for more than 30,000 residents, was unpopular among Latino lawmakers and progressives, but those blocs didn't end up withholding their votes from the final budget package. Democratic Rep. Lilian Jiménez, one of the champions of the program, stressed the importance of making sure the health care networks in low-income communities that are often used by immigrants are adequately funded in the face of the cut. 'What we're trying to do is make sure that those communities have the resources they need to brace for the impact of having 30,000 uninsured throughout the state of Illinois,' said Jiménez, whose district includes heavily Latino portions of Chicago. While many immigrants living in Illinois without authorization pay state and federal taxes that support the program and other services for which they are ineligible because of their citizenship status, a state audit released in February found that over three years the insurance program for older immigrants cost nearly double what was expected. The budget would eliminate funding for a relatively new state program providing free test preparation to students at public universities and some community colleges, launched in late February after receiving $10 million in the current state budget. Supporters said in early May that the program had already saved more than 200,000 students a total of roughly $8 million in just two months. When Illinois launched the program, it became the first state to offer free comprehensive test preparation for college students. Democrats also followed Pritzker's recommendation to pause one of his key priorities: a $75 million annual increase to boost the number of seats in state-funded preschool programs. The budget would keep that spending level with the current overall plan also would cut back on another Pritzker priority, suspending monthly contributions to the state's 'rainy day' fund for a year. Instead, about $45 million would be held in the general fund. At the same time, some lawmakers pushed to boost funding for health facilities that serve low-income patients and communities, asking for $160 million for safety-net hospitals, though settling in the end for $118 million. 'There are significant increases, investments in our hospital systems. Our safety-net hospitals are on the front lines,' Sims said. 'They are caring for our most vulnerable. And we are making sure that we made investments in those safety-net hospitals because they carry a large volume of Medicaid clients. So, we want to make sure they have the resources necessary to be successful.' The Democratic plan also included an 80-cent-per-hour wage increase for direct support professionals who work with people with developmental disabilities, but reduces the hours the state would pay for by 35%, which Gabel, the House majority leader, characterized as 'rightsizing.' Advocates and unions have said wages needed to be raised by $2 an hour to meet recommendations that those workers be paid 150% of minimum wage. At a Senate committee hearing on the plan Saturday afternoon, Rose, the Mahomet Republican, said the reduction in hours was a 'cynical sleight of hand.' Republicans also criticized the use of one-time revenue streams to fill shortfalls, including the diversion of money from road projects by again delaying a shift of revenue from the sales tax on gasoline from the state's general fund to the road fund, freeing up $171 million to spend on operations. 'Last year … we described that as a one-time, special occurrence. Now, we're doing it again,' Republican Rep. Ryan Spain of Peoria said during a Friday night House committee hearing. 'What happened to the one time occurrence?' 'We're in difficult times,' Gabel said. 'This is a hard budget. We felt like we needed to do it one more time.' Both Republicans and Democrats pointed to the uncertain federal funding picture, with Republicans questioning spending in a 'doomsday budget' and Democrats blaming Trump for creating confusion for states. Gabel said 'this budget is based on the information we have at this time.' Despite the fiscal challenges the state faces, the Democratic plan included $8.2 billion in new spending on infrastructure projects, which are separate from the operating budget and funded by dedicated taxes and borrowing. Republicans accused the majority party of once again hoarding that money for projects in their own districts.'Let's hide this stuff. Let's hide it so that the public doesn't see it until it's too late. Let's blame everybody but ourselves. The Trump administration did this. The Trump administration did that. I call B.S.,' GOP Rep. John Cabello of Machesney Park, who was a Trump delegate during last year's Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, said during the House debate late Saturday. 'Start looking at these pages, people. There is so much pork in here,' C, lamenting that Republicans weren't given a chance to fund projects on behalf of taxpayers in their districts. While House and Senate Democrats dodged Republican questions about the so-called pork-barrel spending, their legislation included funding for a number of large projects in Democratic districts. For instance, Proviso Township High School District 209, which is in House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch's district and where he previously was school board president, would receive $40 million for 'costs associated with capital improvements and an outdoor sports complex at Proviso West High School.' Members of the GOP also criticized proposed pay raises of about 5% — to a base salary of $98,304 — for lawmakers, though in the past they've largely accepted the pay increases even when voting against the budget. The raises are cost-of-living adjustments included in state law, though past legislatures have voted to freeze their own pay — a move that has drawn legal challenges. The plan includes similar increases for the governor, other statewide elected officials and the heads of state agencies. Pritzker, a billionaire Hyatt Hotels heir, does not take a state salary. The Senate-approved plan to address a looming $771 million fiscal cliff for the Chicago area's mass transit system and to overhaul the system's disjointed board structure moved away from a proposed increase on Chicago-area toll roads in favor of a new $1.50 fee on retail deliveries. That came after labor groups and suburban officials criticized the proposed toll increase. The so-called 'climate impact fee,' which also was introduced late Saturday just hours before winning approval in the Senate, would kick in on Jan. 1 and could increase with inflation in future years. It would be imposed for each order, regardless of the number of items, but would not apply 'to the delivery of groceries and prescription and non-prescription drugs and medications.' Retailers with total sales of $500,000 or less in the preceding calendar year would also be exempt. Even before the proposal was officially filed, the fee had drawn opposition from business groups, including the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the manufacturers', restaurant and retail associations, and the big-tech interest group TechNet. 'This new, regressive tax will undermine consumer savings from the recent elimination of the grocery tax and would disproportionately impact communities that rely on delivery services to receive vital items,' the groups said in a statement.

Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon backs surprising tax change
Certain political truths have stood the test of time. Republicans' love for tax cuts has been one of those political truths. Modern Republican presidents are responsible for the most significant cuts in history. President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, which lowered the highest individual tax rate from 70% to 50% and the lowest to 11% from 14%, along with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the highest capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%. Related: Jamie Dimon sends stark warning on the economy President George W. Bush enacted the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that gave the top 1% of households an average tax cut of over $570,000 between 2004 and 2012, increasing their after-tax income by more than 5% each of those years. President Donald Trump continued that legacy wth the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowered the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 37% and increased the standard deductions for single and married filers, among other changes. Those provisions are scheduled to expire in December, but the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives are working on legislation making them permanent. JP Morgan (JPM) 's CEO has been smart enough to describe himself as politically agnostic, calling himself "barely a Democrat" and telling CNBC, "My heart is Democratic but my brain is kind of Republican." New comments from Dimon at the Reagan National Economic Forum make it seem that Dimon's brain is also moving over to the Democratic side. Image source:On Friday, Jamie Dimon told the mostly Republican crowd in Washington, D.C., that he supports taxing carried interest, the compensation paid to private investment fund managers. This compensation is taxed at a much lower rate than regular income, giving a significant tax benefit for the lucky few Americans who qualify. According to Reuters, Dimon said, "We absolutely should be taxing carried interest," echoing President Donald Trump's sentiment. Related: Elon Musk has surprising message on Big Beautiful Bill income tax cuts This change, which has received bipartisan support over the years but never came to pass, would severely hurt the bottom line for hedge funds, private equity firms, and similar financial institutions. Even in 2015, Trump said, "The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder," but nothing changed during his presidency. It's estimated that the government loses about $20 billion in annual tax revenue from the rule. Dimon and Trump's stance on this tax loophole may indicate that the country's finances are reaching their tipping point. Despite Moody's recent unprecedented credit downgrade, the White House's latest budget proposal is expected to explode the deficit. More economy American car company takes drastic action in response to tariffsTariff repeal couldn't come at a better time for US businesses Wall Street's TACO trade gains momentum and stock market rally The bill includes a slate of tax cuts, including increases to the Social Security income tax deduction and breaks for tips and overtime, as well as a revamped State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction. According to the Tax Foundation, the bill would increase the country's 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion while reducing federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion. In essence, it increases spending while taking in less income than the government already does. But the $20 billion from closing the tax loopholes is better than nothing. Related: DOGE cuts are already saving Elon Musk billions The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.