House votes to increase SALT deduction
WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) – House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reached a deal with Republican House members from blue states who pushed for an increase in the SALT deduction cap in President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill', allowing it to pass the House.
The Big Beautiful Bill that passed the House on Thursday would increase the SALT deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) led the charge in the House to get the SALT cap raised. Lawler said taxpayers in his district pay some of the highest property taxes in the country and should be able to deduct those from their federal taxes.
Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress capped the amount of state and local taxes (SALT) people could deduct from their federal returns.
Most Republicans said the SALT cap would save the government money. The Congressional Research Service estimated eliminating the SALT deduction cap would cost $120 billion next year.
'They're saying, when you live in a big blue state, you pass less federal taxes than Texans,' said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). 'When you have an unlimited deduction for state and local tax, what it does is it basically subsidizes the big, blue states.'
Democrats, and blue state Republicans said a low SALT deduction cap essentially forces people to pay double taxes.
'States like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California are donor states. We regularly send billions of dollars more to the federal government than we get back,' said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the House Minority Leader.
President Donald Trump said the blue states are the only ones who want the cap raised.
'This is an issue of double taxation,' Lawler said. 'It's an issue of fairness.'
The Congressional Research Service said the largest percentage of people who take the SALT deduction earn more than $199,999.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
San Francisco Chronicle
30 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump administration pulls $4 billion in federal funding for California high-speed rail
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to pull the plug on federal funding to California's high-speed rail project. Following a review of the $4 billion in federal funds allocated to California's bullet train project launched in February, the Transportation Department said it plans to terminate federal funding for the project, according to a report released Wednesday. 'We have $4 billion that has been authorized to go to California to build this project and we don't want to invest in boondoggles,' Transportation Sec. Sean Duffy told Fox News Wednesday. The state will have 30 days to make the case that it has complied with the grant's terms and any corrective action it plans to take before the federal government can terminate funding. The Transportation Department is not asking for the state to repay federal funding previously given for the project, but said it could do so in the future — although any attempts to do so would likely be unsuccessful. 'What started as a proposed 800-mile system was first reduced to 500 miles, then became a 171-mile segment, and is now very likely ended as a 119-mile track to nowhere. In essence, (the California High-Speed Rail Authority) has conned the taxpayer out of its $4 billion investment, with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Drew Feeley, acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, said. The federal government 'cannot continue to commit taxpayer dollars to (the California High-Speed Rail Authority's) Sisyphean endeavor,' Feeley said. California's high-speed rail project is a 'story of broken promises and of waste of Federal taxpayer dollars.' The Trump administration has 'been laying the groundwork for this for month. They're completely hostile, not just to California high-speed rail, but rail in general and public transportation,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, told the Chronicle. 'This is a Neanderthal administration that probably thinks public transportation is a communist plot.' Wiener, a staunch proponent of the bullet train, acknowledged the project's challenges. 'We certainly have to do better in California in terms of project delivery, but … it's not a reason to start canceling major, transformative public infrastructure projects. We need to find a way to get these projects done more efficiently and more effectively,' Wiener said. The first Trump administration pursued terminating the project's funding in 2019, but the Biden administration negotiated a 2021 settlement with the state to continue supporting the segment from Bakersfield to Merced. The project's costs — initially estimated to be $33 billion and now expected to cost between $89 billion and $128 billion — have ballooned and its timelines have been repeatedly delayed. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Democrats have not backed down on funding for high-speed rail in past budgets, despite opposition from Republicans. Newsom has acknowledged for months that Trump would try to claw back money for the project, just as Trump did during his first term. Newsom has promised to fight any efforts to revoke the money. The high-speed rail funding is just one bucket of federal money Trump has threatened to withhold from California, along with federal health care and education funding. 'There still is the rule of law, still the court system, there's still due process,' Newsom told reporters in January when he unveiled an initial version of his 2025-26 state budget proposal. 'You can threaten, as Trump has consistently done ... but ultimately those federal dollars will be recovered.' Since January, California's budget outlook has deteriorated significantly, and the Newsom administration now predicts California faces a $12 billion shortfall, which will make it harder for state officials to backfill any federal funding cuts. Newsom and lawmakers are negotiating over the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year and must reach a deal on how to balance the budget this month to meet constitutional deadlines. Even with the state's difficult financial situation this year, Wiener said he expected the project to move forward because 'it's not about one year, this is about the long-term health and economic strength of California.' Republicans have for years decried the project's skyrocketing costs and lack of progress. President Donald Trump told reporters Feb. 5 that he would personally investigate the high-speed rail project. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin (Placer County), introduced legislation on Jan. 6 to make the project ineligible for further federal funding, the same day Newsom drove a symbolic spike in the ground to celebrate the rail line's first 22-mile segment, from the border of Tulare and Kern counties to Poplar Avenue in Wasco (Kern County). Republicans in the Legislature sent a letter to Trump Feb. 13 expressing support for his probe and saying they have a duty to constituents to 'carefully examine the viability of this project.' 'I want to see high-speed rail in America,' Duffy said. 'Why it can't be built in America and why it can't be built within time frames that work for the people that invest in these projects makes no sense to me.' State leaders have focused largely on finishing the stretch of high-speed rail track from Merced to Bakersfield, with the idea of linking it to two other bullet train lines: the High Desert Corridor in Los Angeles, and the privately owned Brightline West route from Las Vegas to Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County). Ultimately, they also want to connect to Caltrain's commuter line on the Peninsula, patching together a network that somewhat resembles the original vision from the mid-1990s. The loss of this funding would 'certainly be a setback, but it is a relatively small percentage of the overall budget of the project,' Wiener said. 'It's not a death knell.'
San Francisco Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Pennsylvania is suing the USDA over cutting funding to a $1 billion food aid program for states
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday, saying the agency, under President Donald Trump, had illegally cut off funding to it through a program designed to distribute more than $1 billion in aid to states to purchase food from farms for schools, child care centers, and food banks. The lawsuit in federal court, announced by Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, comes three months after the USDA advised states that it was ending the pandemic-era assistance program because it no longer reflected agency priorities. 'I don't get what the hell their priorities are if not feeding people and taking care of our farmers," Shapiro said at a news conference at a food bank warehouse in Philadelphia. The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Harrisburg, asks the court to reverse the USDA's decision to end the reimbursement program. Shapiro's administration, in the lawsuit, said the USDA's termination of the contract was illegal, saying the USDA didn't explain why it no longer reflected agency priorities and that the contract didn't expressly allow the USDA to terminate it for those reasons. Shapiro said he was confident that Pennsylvania would win the lawsuit. 'A deal is a deal,' Shapiro told the news conference. 'They made a deal with our farmers, they made a deal with Pennsylvania and they broke it.' The loss to Pennsylvania is $13 million under a three-year contract, money that the state planned to use to buy food from farms to stock food banks. States also use the money to buy food from farms for school nutrition programs and child care centers. Purchases include commodities such as cheese, eggs, meat, fruits and vegetables. The department, under then-President Joe Biden, announced a second round of funding through the program last year.
Buzz Feed
35 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
GOP Senator's Shocking Healthcare Comment Goes Viral
Republicans are currently having a PR nightmare while bending over backwards to convince Americans that Donald Trump's proposed cuts to Medicaid in his "Big, beautiful, bill" are a good thing. (Spoiler alert: they're not). At least $880 billion in cuts have been proposed, largely from Medicaid, to fund tax breaks. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under Trump's bill, 8.6 million people would lose healthcare over a decade. In a recent town hall, voters raised concerns about Trump's proposed Medicaid cuts potentially allowing people to die from lack of coverage. Republican Iowa Senator Joni Ernst flippantly told voters, "Well, we are all going to die." "A rising tide lifts all boats. And, uh, you know, the best for the people looking for healthcare, the best healthcare is a job." "And a lot of times, healthcare comes with a job, and so creating those better-paying jobs that come with benefits is ultimately the goal here." Obviously, people are pissed at Thune's comments. "Cool I'll just tell the literally [nearly] 40 million children on Medicaid this," one person wrote. "'The best health care is a job' = 'You are only valuable to us if you're able-bodied and work full time to make us richer and if you can't then you should just die.'" "This assumption that people on Medicaid don't want to work is just wrong. For folks like my constituent Emmanuel, Medicaid is the lifeline they need to get and hold a job. The best health care is health care," lawmaker Lisa Blunt Rochester wrote. "i work over 40 hours per week, our health insurance barely covers anything, and i WORK IN HEALTHCARE" "There are a lot of jobs that don't offer health care coverage, and dont pay enough to afford health care premiums. But John Thune doesn't care about that. His job offers health care coverage, and he's got plenty of cash." Needless to say, the midterms should be interesting!
