Latest news with #BudgetAct
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - When it comes to reconciliation, there is no House versus Senate
As a former senior staffer and creature of the U.S. House, I take no pleasure in pointing out that it holds an inflated view of its role in the reconciliation process. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to recent media reports suggesting that the Senate merely needs to 'take' what the House does and pass it. Rather, it is a reflection of the statutory framework that governs budget reconciliation in Congress. Reconciliation, as it operates in the House, exists to originate a revenue measure that maintains procedural privilege in the Senate. Its purpose is not to secure the House's wish list at the expense of Senate priorities, or even the very privilege itself. In fact, if the House includes provisions that don't comply with the Budget Act, this is called a fatality — it means the entire measure is no longer privileged in Senate, defeating the whole point of the exercise. This procedural reality does not diminish the political and strategic value of the countless hours House members and staff spent crafting reconciliation targets and instructions. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created an expedited process for the Senate for considering legislation that changes existing revenue, mandatory spending, or the debt limit, provided it meets specific drafting requirements. The Budget Act is clear: If you want to use this expedited process — one that limits debate time and avoids the need for a 60-vote cloture threshold in the Senate — then the legislation must be written to conform to those requirements. By choosing reconciliation as the legislative vehicle to advance the priorities of the president and congressional Republican leadership, the House is, by design, deferring to the Senate's procedural needs. Reconciliation is not required to pass tax cuts, reduce spending or adjust the debt ceiling. But it is required if the goal is to pass such measures with a simple majority in the Senate. The House should fight to produce the best possible product, but ultimately, reconciliation is designed to make it easier for the Senate to pass legislation — not to empower the House to dictate the terms. If the House wants to negotiate as an equal partner, reconciliation is not the right tool. But if the goal is to get a bill to the president's desk by summer, then it must stay focused on the shared objective: preserving privilege. This isn't House versus Senate — it is House and Senate. Jennifer Belair is former staff director of House Rules Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
16-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
When it comes to reconciliation, there is no House versus Senate
As a former senior staffer and creature of the U.S. House, I take no pleasure in pointing out that it holds an inflated view of its role in the reconciliation process. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to recent media reports suggesting that the Senate merely needs to 'take' what the House does and pass it. Rather, it is a reflection of the statutory framework that governs budget reconciliation in Congress. Reconciliation, as it operates in the House, exists to originate a revenue measure that maintains procedural privilege in the Senate. Its purpose is not to secure the House's wish list at the expense of Senate priorities, or even the very privilege itself. In fact, if the House includes provisions that don't comply with the Budget Act, this is called a fatality — it means the entire measure is no longer privileged in Senate, defeating the whole point of the exercise. This procedural reality does not diminish the political and strategic value of the countless hours House members and staff spent crafting reconciliation targets and instructions. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created an expedited process for the Senate for considering legislation that changes existing revenue, mandatory spending, or the debt limit, provided it meets specific drafting requirements. The Budget Act is clear: If you want to use this expedited process — one that limits debate time and avoids the need for a 60-vote cloture threshold in the Senate — then the legislation must be written to conform to those requirements. By choosing reconciliation as the legislative vehicle to advance the priorities of the president and congressional Republican leadership, the House is, by design, deferring to the Senate's procedural needs. Reconciliation is not required to pass tax cuts, reduce spending or adjust the debt ceiling. But it is required if the goal is to pass such measures with a simple majority in the Senate. The House should fight to produce the best possible product, but ultimately, reconciliation is designed to make it easier for the Senate to pass legislation — not to empower the House to dictate the terms. If the House wants to negotiate as an equal partner, reconciliation is not the right tool. But if the goal is to get a bill to the president's desk by summer, then it must stay focused on the shared objective: preserving privilege. This isn't House versus Senate — it is House and Senate. Jennifer Belair is former staff director of House Rules Committee.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
GOP concerns about tax cut strategy and Medicaid loom over Senate budget
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans managed to proceed to debate their massive budget plan Thursday night, but not before an unexpected delay caused by some of their own who have concerns about their strategy on tax cuts and potential cuts to Medicaid. The delay occurred as those Republicans met with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to talk through their concerns. Some more centrist senators are worried about a budget change the party is using to slap a zero-dollar price tag on extending President Donald Trump's tax cuts, which are estimated by the official scorekeeper in Congress to cost $4.6 trillion over a decade. Republicans are delaying a reckoning over the issue after they bypassed the Senate parliamentarian on the question of whether they can use "current policy" baseline to treat extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which are set to expire this year, as costing nothing. But that means the move could be challenged later, and it would potentially blow up the bill if the parliamentarian rules against it — unless the Senate votes to overrule her, which some have likened to nuking the 60-vote filibuster rule. A handful of Republicans have concerns that they will be asked to do that later in the process. 'I will just speak for myself and say that I would never vote to overturn the parliamentarian,' Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, one of the senators who met with Thune, told NBC News. And Thune insists Senate Republicans are just following the law, as he expects to plow through debate, amendments and approve the resolution this weekend. That would just be the beginning of the process. 'We wouldn't have moved forward if we didn't think we were clearly following the law, the Budget Act,' Thune said. 'We got a long ways to go. But you know, the model that we've selected to pursue, we think checks all the boxes.' Thune said he was 'hearing folks out and obviously giving them a chance to one, explain their concerns and hopefully get some questions answered, and just make sure everybody had a comfort level with you know, proceeding.' Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., insists he has sole power to decide whether extending Trump's tax cuts should be scored as costing money and that the parliamentarian has no say. "It's not her decision, it's mine," he said. Graham said that as long as there are 51 Senate votes to use that budgeting method, that's all that matters. And if not? 'Then that approach would fail. And I'd hate for the party to suffer that because I think current policy is good policy for the economy. I think that's what President Trump wants, what I want,' he said in an interview. He didn't say what would happen if Democrats ask the parliamentarian to opine and she rules against the GOP approach, saying only that he doubts it will happen that way. Another senator, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he has "a big concern" about the bill slashing Medicaid — and took his concerns directly to Trump in a phone call Thursday evening before the vote. "I said there's this language in the bill. And he said, 'I want to be crystal clear about this: the House will not cut Medicaid benefits under any circumstance, the Senate will not cut Medicaid benefits under any circumstance, and I will not sign a cut to Medicaid benefits.' So that's good, and I hope our leadership will take that cue," Hawley told reporters before the vote. Twenty-one percent "of my state receives Medicaid — CHIP or Medicaid. So, I've made clear I'm not going to vote for Medicaid cuts. And I thought the president's assurance to me tonight was completely unequivocal," Hawley added, saying that assurance made him comfortable voting to begin the process. That's easier said than done. The House-approved budget, which Trump endorsed, makes it mathematically impossible for Republicans to achieve their targets without cutting Medicare or Medicaid. Lawmakers say they want to cut waste and fraud, along with imposing a potential work requirement for Medicaid. Beyond that, they haven't identified ways to reduce spending. Overall, GOP leaders say they want to find trillions of dollars in spending cuts to balance out the other side of the ledger after their tax breaks, as well as spending hikes on immigration enforcement and the military. But they continue to lack consensus on what to cut. Other Republicans remain optimistic that they'll work it out. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., who did not attend the meeting Thursday evening, said the leadership was 'not twisting arms,' but 'some folks wanted to make sure that they understood how the process worked. They sat down with a number of folks who were very familiar with it, and went through it. It took a little bit longer to get it done.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
City council allocates $3 million for Old Sacramento dining deck repairs
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Repairs are in the works for an old dining deck in Old Sacramento. On Tuesday night, the Sacramento City Council voted unanimously to spend about $3 million dollars to replace the old deck overlooking the Sacramento River of formerly the Rio City Cafe. A 2019 study deemed the 30-year-old deck unsafe after years of deteriorating due to rain, wind, and other wear and tear. In April 2024, the owners of Rio City Cafe had to close the lower outdoor deck of the restaurant which accounted for a significant portion of the cafe's seating. The owners previously told FOX40 that losing that section of seating was extremely hard on business. Repairs to the deck were put on pause by the city due to a lack of funding in 2024. By August 2024, the cafe ultimately closed its doors due to the impacts of losing the deck and there being no clear timeline for when repairs would be made, if ever. 'I have heard so many comments from people that were deeply disappointed that the city did not find a way to address the deck in a timely manner,' District 2 Councilmember Roger Dickinson said at Tuesday's meeting. The city said money for the project wasn't available in 2023 or early 2024. However, later that year the state awarded the city $4.6 million dollars through the Budget Act. Fast forward to January 2025, the project was restarted and by March the city council accepted the grant. Several in the community and city leaders including Mayor Kevin McCarty have long cited a need for investment at the Old Sacramento Waterfront. 'We have Major League Baseball. People are walking from downtown through Old Sac to the ballpark and I want them to see a sign saying 'Hey, coming soon' and improvements being made to our Sacramento riverfront. This is very, very timely and I expect us to be done before October so this will be ready to roll and have a new operator,' Mayor McCarty said at Tuesday's meeting. Final construction costs for the deck are estimated to be around $2.9 million. Leaders at Tuesday night's meeting said the deck would be rebuilt to last for at least another 30 years. Repairs to the deck must comply with several agencies given the deck's location over the Sacramento River including the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Work is expected to begin in May and be completed by October 2025. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans release budget blueprint with new tax cuts and a $5 trillion debt limit hike
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans released a new budget blueprint Wednesday that would pave the way for $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts in addition to making President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent. They hope to adopt the plan in the coming days to instruct committees to begin work a massive bill to pass Trump's agenda on taxes, immigration funding and other priorities. Senate Republicans are using the budget 'reconciliation' process to evade the 60-vote hurdle in the chamber, where they hold a 53-47 majority, and cut Democrats out of the process. Republicans are utilizing a controversial new accounting method known as 'current policy baseline' to score the cost of a Trump tax cut extension at $0. Democrats have slammed it as 'magic math' that papers over the multi-trillion-dollar cost of extending those tax cuts, and are exploring their options to challenge the approach. The Senate GOP budget resolution includes a $5 trillion debt limit increase. It is a revised version of a previous budget plan that excluded taxes. Trump has pressured Republicans to pass his agenda in 'one big, beautiful bill,' aligning with the House's approach. 'It is now time for the Senate to move forward with this budget resolution in order to further advance our shared Republican agenda in Congress,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a statement Wednesday. In his statement, Thune said the Senate parliamentarian has 'reviewed the Budget Committee's substitute amendment and deemed it appropriate for consideration under the Budget Act.' But a spokesperson for Senate Budget Committee Democrats disputed that regarding the scoring method for Trump's tax cuts, saying: 'Any assertion that the Parliamentarian approved the use of a current policy baseline is false.' The text was released after a group of GOP senators met with Trump, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chair of the Budget Committee. Graham and other Senate Republicans have moved much closer to the House's approach, though some differences remain that will need to be sorted out in the final bill. 'Senate Budget Committee Republicans met today with the President. He is fully on board with the Senate's proposal and process to cut spending,' Graham said. The measure opens the door to a $150 billion increase to military spending and $175 billion more for immigration enforcement to help Trump carry out his mass deportation plan. At the White House on Wednesday, Trump endorsed the Senate's plan and pushed the GOP lawmakers in attendance to pass the bill. 'That's a nice group of people,' he said of the members of Congress. 'But I won't like them so much if they don't get this bill done.' The spending cuts set forth in the Senate budget are modest, totaling only a few billion dollars across several committees. GOP leaders stress that they are not targets but rather attempts to maintain flexibility if Republicans can't find the savings they want. 'Senate Republicans are so hell-bent on cutting taxes for billionaires, they're now willing to detonate the rules of the Senate, violate norms and traditions, and break their word to get it done,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday. 'Republicans know their so-called 'current policy baseline' gimmick won't likely fly. It's hocus pocus.' Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the ranking member of the Finance Committee, slammed the new budget proposal Wednesday. 'No amount of gaslighting from Republicans about the true cost of their tax plan, now upward of $5 trillion, can hide the fact that they want to pay for handouts to billionaires and corporations by kicking millions of Americans off their health insurance, driving up child hunger and wiping out hundreds of thousands of jobs,' he said. This article was originally published on
