Latest news with #Burlison
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Nobody's talking about it': Republicans' incredible shrinking deficit talk
The tax and spending megabill that House Republicans celebrated passing early Thursday is estimated to add more than $3 trillion to the country's debt over the next 10 years. Yet after years of railing against deficits as economically and politically toxic, Republicans are losing their appetite for the topic this time around. Even as Treasury bond yields soared in a sign of investor queasiness about their bill's front-loaded debt, some Republicans insist their plan would boost revenues enough that deficits eventually shrink. Only a crop of the House GOP's biggest fiscal hawks raised deficit worries before the all-night session where their leaders muscled the bill through — and all but three swallowed their fears to vote 'yes.' Republicans have an impressive statistic to help distract from their deficit denial: President Donald Trump's economic team argues that cutting taxes for manufacturers, tipped workers, car owners, retirees, high-tax-state residents, and others who benefit from their bill will bump the GDP by as much as 3.5 percent over the next decade (much more than third-party estimates). The truth, however, is that some of the House's cuts to Medicaid and energy projects may not survive the Senate. And broadly speaking, the GOP's anti-debt orthodoxy lost ground in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' to his brand of economic populism. 'Isn't it amazing that the reality hasn't broken through the rhetoric yet?' Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Semafor. 'Nobody's talking about it.' Before Trump finished helping to push the House bill to passage, some conservatives were prepared to talk about its high cost. Members of the House Freedom Caucus raised concerns over spiking bond yields that signal low investor confidence in US debt during their Wednesday huddle with Trump at the White House, said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo. 'I don't know that this bill is going to be, or [is] even capable of being, the fix to what's going on with the bond market,' Burlison said. 'The Senate may have an opportunity to make some new movement there.' Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., another Freedom Caucus holdout, told Semafor after midnight on Wednesday that 'I'm not surprised nobody in this town doesn't talk about [the deficit] more. Everybody just ignores it.' Hours later, Burlison and Burchett voted for the megabill they previously resisted. On Tuesday, when Trump came to the Capitol to lobby Republicans on the tax and spending package, multiple lawmakers said the president did not talk about deficits at all. Instead, he underscored the importance that they raise the debt ceiling so the US can borrow more money. That didn't work for Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who voted no. 'Back home, people know that they want less spending,'' said Davidson. 'They're paying attention to the bond market, the downgrade of our credit. They know deficits do matter.' Only one other House Republican opposed the bill: Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. A longtime foil of the president who frequently wears a self-made debt-clock lapel pin, Massie delivered scathing floor remarks shortly before 2 a.m. Thursday and compared passing the bill to being on the Titanic, 'putting coal in the boiler, and setting a course for the iceberg.' 'Congress can do funny math — fantasy math, if it wants — but bond investors don't. And this week, they sent us a message,' Massie said to applause from Democrats. Fiscal hawks in the Senate now get a crack at the megabill. They don't like what we see. 'When people talk about, 'Well, the bill is going to cut $800 billion' … that kind of sounds good. But what does it mean if you add it up against what comes in?' said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who plans to vote no as long as the debt ceiling remains included. Persistently high interest rates could strengthen their hand. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he will push to make the bill deficit-neutral. He teamed up with Johnson for a presentation to colleagues Wednesday about the yawning deficit. 'We've got to balance the budget; we don't have a choice. You see what's happening; rates are going up, the American public is paying more for mortgages, car payments, for credit cards,' Scott said. Johnson said if Republicans don't address the situation, they will eventually have to do something even more at odds with their identity than padding the deficit: boosting revenues. 'If we're not willing to address spending at some point in time, we're going to have to pay for this. And do we start paying for it by having a tax increase? Nobody wants that.' The Congressional Budget Office predicts the US is already on track for its debt to exceed the size of its economy by 2032 — a marker it's only hit in the wake of World War II and the Great Recession — as interest payments alone exceed defense spending. Former President Joe Biden's administration played its own role in that higher debt — but after years of absorbing deficit-spending criticism from Republicans, Democrats are eager to dish it out. 'They complain about the debt on Monday, and then they add $4 trillion to it on Tuesday,' Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, told Semafor. 'I'm astounded.' Still, Democrats are careful not to focus on the debt too much. House Majority Forward, a nonprofit organization associated with House Democrats' super PAC, on Wednesday urged members to steer away from primarily talking about deficit increases when discussing the megabill. When asked about the legislation's impact on the deficit, GOP officials cast doubt on official scorekeepers. House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., said this month that the party's 2017 tax cuts raised more in revenue than projected. 'Part of the reason why there's a lot of confusion in analysis of this stuff is because folks tend to, I would say, overly credit CBO forecasts,' White House Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran told reporters. The House's deficit hawks tried to raise concerns this week, but they proved no match for Trump's force of will. We think Paul will stand strong against the bill in the Senate, but the president has proved that almost every other Republican is malleable. The biggest issue for Senate Republicans is that cutting more spending means losing votes from the center of their conference. So the 'big beautiful bill' seems likely to increase deficits to some degree, if and when it becomes law. One X factor remains: the bond markets. We've seen them change Trump's mind on tariffs. That formula may not work on legislation. Hardline conservatives who voted to pass the bill out of the House say they still agree with Davidson and Massie. 'History may bear out that Warren and Thomas were the wise men in this course,' Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said. But they also argue that the changes they secured made the bill more fiscally responsible than it was — and that they had to vote yes to maintain momentum, particularly since the Senate will change it anyway. 'There are going to be significant negotiations,' Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., said. Republican economists they're skeptical of the White House's projection that revenue raised by tax cuts will cover their costs. that long-term borrowing costs are up around the world as investors question several governments' ability to cope with deficits.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US Republican budget proposal has removal of gun silencer tax in its sights
By Bo Erickson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Republican tax writers pushing through President Donald Trump's signature tax cut priorities proposed to eliminate a customer tax on firearm silencers, a tax potentially undoing the almost 100-year-old tax. If the bill is passed by Congress and enacted into law, Americans would no longer be charged $200 when purchasing a firearm silencer, also called a suppressor, an add-on feature that reduces the sound of a gunshot. The firearm silencer tweak is only 12 lines in the almost-400-page bill, but represents a potential grassroots win for gun-rights groups that want to deregulate purchases of firearm suppressors, which currently require special approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The suppressor tax has been on the books since the 1934 National Firearms Act, and 4.5 million suppressors were registered with the federal government by the end of 2024, according to data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. On average, a firearm suppressor costs about $830 at retail, the group said. House Republicans applauded Representative Eric Burlison, from Missouri, when he rose at his party's January meeting in Miami to push tax committee leadership to eliminate the suppressor tax. "This is about making sure that people keep their hearing at the end of the day," Burlison said in an interview, noting he also questions whether the tax infringes the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Burlison said he worked with Representative Rudy Yakym, a Republican tax writer from Indiana, to make progress on the silencer tax cut while foregoing a repeal of the same tax for short barrel rifle purchases due to "heartburn" from the larger tax committee. Democrats tried to strike this silencer tax provision from the bill during legislative debate in the middle of Tuesday night. Republicans defeated the amendment. Representative Mike Thompson, a California Democrat, argued the silencer change will "make it harder for victims of mass shootings to know where the shots are coming from as they're trying to run for cover." 'As a combat veteran, a lifelong hunter and gun owner, I can tell you this has nothing to do with hearing protection, but everything to do about making money for one segment of the gun industry," Thompson said. The Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Organizations did not respond to requests for comment about the tax change. Meanwhile, pro-gun lobbyists like the American Firearms Association said this tax tweak does not go far enough, calling the change "nothing more than a crumb dropped from the King's table." "It's vital that Republicans use the majorities they have in the House, Senate and control of the White House to completely deregulate suppressors and short barrel rifles, and even more importantly, abolish the ATF and repeal the National Firearms Act," said vice president Patrick Parsons.
Reuters
14-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
US Republican budget proposal has removal of gun silencer tax in its sights
WASHINGTON, May 14 (Reuters) - U.S. Republican tax writers pushing through President Donald Trump's signature tax cut priorities proposed to eliminate a customer tax on firearm silencers, a tax potentially undoing the almost 100-year-old tax. If the bill is passed by Congress and enacted into law, Americans would no longer be charged $200 when purchasing a firearm silencer, also called a suppressor, an add-on feature that reduces the sound of a gunshot. The firearm silencer tweak is only 12 lines in the almost-400-page bill, but represents a potential grassroots win for gun-rights groups that want to deregulate purchases of firearm suppressors, which currently require special approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The suppressor tax has been on the books since the 1934 National Firearms Act, and 4.5 million suppressors were registered with the federal government by the end of 2024, according to data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. On average, a firearm suppressor costs about $830 at retail, the group said. House Republicans applauded Representative Eric Burlison, from Missouri, when he rose at his party's January meeting in Miami to push tax committee leadership to eliminate the suppressor tax. "This is about making sure that people keep their hearing at the end of the day," Burlison said in an interview, noting he also questions whether the tax infringes the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Burlison said he worked with Representative Rudy Yakym, a Republican tax writer from Indiana, to make progress on the silencer tax cut while foregoing a repeal of the same tax for short barrel rifle purchases due to "heartburn" from the larger tax committee. Democrats tried to strike this silencer tax provision from the bill during legislative debate in the middle of Tuesday night. Republicans defeated the amendment. Representative Mike Thompson, a California Democrat, argued the silencer change will "make it harder for victims of mass shootings to know where the shots are coming from as they're trying to run for cover." 'As a combat veteran, a lifelong hunter and gun owner, I can tell you this has nothing to do with hearing protection, but everything to do about making money for one segment of the gun industry," Thompson said. The Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Organizations did not respond to requests for comment about the tax change. Meanwhile, pro-gun lobbyists like the American Firearms Association said this tax tweak does not go far enough, calling the change "nothing more than a crumb dropped from the King's table." "It's vital that Republicans use the majorities they have in the House, Senate and control of the White House to completely deregulate suppressors and short barrel rifles, and even more importantly, abolish the ATF and repeal the National Firearms Act," said vice president Patrick Parsons.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
GOP civil war breaks out over Medicaid as right calls for deeper cuts
Fiscal hawks are lashing out over what they say are the lack of Medicaid reforms in President Trump's legislative package, which could thwart the House GOP's goal of passing the legislation next week. The gripes from conservatives are centered on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's portion of the sprawling package, which beefs up work requirements for Medicaid and imposes more frequent eligibility checks but stops short of more substantial changes — such as siphoning federal funding away from states. 'In my opinion they don't go far enough,' said Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus who does not support the package. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found the panel's work would reduce deficits by more than $880 billion by 2034, exceeding the instructions laid out in the budget resolution. But hard-liners such as Burlison are unconvinced by the CBO's 'funny math.' 'I really don't trust the CBO score,' said Burlison, who told reporters he was shocked the cuts weren't larger. 'At the end of the day, we have a $2 trillion deficit and the fact that we're — we're shuffling the chairs on the top of the Titanic here,' he added. 'So we've got to do more.' Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), another deficit hawk in the Freedom Caucus, said he spoke out against the bill during the conference's closed-door meeting Wednesday morning, along with several others. He wants 'substantial' changes. 'I'm not flexing this as a, because I'm trying to get something for South Carolina,' he told reporters after the meeting. 'I'm trying to get the math in order to get this country back on track financially, and it just hasn't happened.' One of the biggest complaints from conservatives revolves around the work requirements, which demand Medicaid enrollees take part in at least 80 hours of 'community engagement,' including work, community service or a work program. That provision, however, would not take effect until the beginning of 2029 — which hard-liners say is far too late. 'Literally, that's like a parent telling their 25-year-old living in the basement, 'You've got to get a job and move out, but you know what? I'm giving you four years to do it.' It's ridiculous. Nobody works that way,' said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the chair of the House Freedom Caucus. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) echoed that sentiment, saying he was 'a little disappointed.' 'Delaying a lot of these things are like hollow promises,' he added. 'They'll cut that in four years, or they'll phase it in over a longer period of time. And I'd rather see actually aggressive cuts.' Deficit hawks are also miffed that GOP leadership did not go further and lower the federal matching rate for Medicaid, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP). Hard-liners pushed for changes to the FMAP and placing a per-capita cap on people who get coverage from Medicaid expansion, two proposals that moderates dubbed red lines. In the end, centrists won that fight. 'We're still letting the states launder money through Medicaid by paying 90 percent of the cost for an able-bodied adult, when we pay for 57 percent of pregnant women, children, seniors and disabled,' Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) said. 'It's a money laundering scheme by the states.' The airing of grievances came as Energy and Commerce debates its portion of the bill at a meeting poised to break the record for its longest markup — 27 hours. Hard-liners had pushed for significant spending cuts in the entire package, leading leadership to call for at least $1.5 trillion in slashes — $880 billion of which would come from Energy and Commerce. The panel achieved that goal: According to a draft CBO analysis circulated by Democrats, the bill would reduce federal spending by roughly $912 billion over the decade, with $715 billion coming from the health provision. The scorekeeper also said 8.6 million people would lose insurance. Those results are now drawing scrutiny and caution from both sides of the GOP's ideological spectrum, posing a difficult balancing act for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). While conservatives complain the cuts are too small, moderates are more guarded and appear nervous to back provisions that were not as significant as they could have been but will still leave millions of more Americans uninsured. 'I'm still reading through it but obviously a lot of the draconian cuts that people were pushing for, I and others were able to prevent, so we're reading through the bill as it's written,' said Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who represents a swing district. 'There could be some changes there, too,' Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) said. 'There are a lot of people that are unhappy with a lot of provisions.' That hesitation means Johnson may have a difficult time ratcheting up Medicaid cuts to appease hard-liners, as it would almost certainly be met with opposition from moderates. Johnson is remaining even-keeled. Asked by The Hill on Wednesday if he believes the deficit hawks are changing the rules midgame by complaining about the lack of spending cuts after the CBO said the committee reached the minimum $880 billion, Johnson said their gripes are part of the process. 'No, I don't think the goalposts are being moved,' he said. 'I think everybody's just expressing their preferences for the final product, and again, that's part of the process.' The debate over Medicaid cuts is just one disagreement over the GOP's blueprint. The Speaker is also grappling with a heated debate over the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which has also pitted moderates against conservatives. Republican centrists from high-tax blue states — including New York, New Jersey and California — have pushed for an increase to the SALT deduction cap, which currently sits at $10,000. The House Ways and Means Committee's portion of the bill proposes a $30,000 cap for individuals making $400,000 or less, a number that SALT Caucus members have vocally rejected. Johnson is now working with those lawmakers to find consensus, with moderates saying they will not support the final package without reasonable SALT relief for their constituents. On the other end of the conference, hard-line conservatives are speaking out against a SALT deduction cap increase because of its costly price tag. Deficit hawks are warning they will not get on board with a higher deduction cap unless it is paid for. 'My view on the SALT Caucus is that, look, I get it. I get you're in that situation, but it costs money. And you can't be the same group of people that are b‑‑‑‑ing or complaining about spending cuts in other areas,' Burlison said. 'If you want your SALT tax deductions, it's got to be paid for, otherwise the American people are going to pay it in debt and deficit and interest rates and inflation.' 'You can't have your cake and eat it too,' he continued. 'If you want your SALT tax deduction to go up, you need to find the savings. So don't complain.' Emily Brooks and Mike Lillis contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
14-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
GOP civil war breaks out over Medicaid as right calls for deeper cuts
Fiscal hawks are lashing out over what they say are the lack of Medicaid reforms in President Trump's legislative package, which could thwart the House GOP's goal of passing the legislation next week. The gripes from conservatives are centered on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's portion of the sprawling package, which beefs up work requirements for Medicaid and imposes more frequent eligibility checks but stops short of more substantial changes— like siphoning federal funding away from states. 'In my opinion they don't go far enough,' said Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus who does not support the package. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the panel's work would reduce deficits by more than $880 billion by 2034, exceeding the instructions laid out in the budget resolution. But hardliners such as Burlison are unconvinced over the CBO's 'funny math.' 'I really don't trust the CBO score,' said Burlison, who told reporters he was shocked the cuts weren't larger. 'At the end of the day we have a $2 trillion deficit and the fact that we're, we're shuffling the chairs on the top of the Titanic here,' he added. 'So we've got to do more.' Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), another deficit hawk in the Freedom Caucus, said he spoke out against the bill during the conference's closed-door meeting Wednesday morning, along with several others. He wants 'substantial' changes. 'I'm not flexing this as a, because I'm trying to get something for South Carolina,' he told reporters after the meeting. 'I'm trying to get the math in order to get this country back on track financially, and it just hasn't happened.' One of the biggest complaints from conservatives revolves around the work requirements, which demand Medicaid enrollees take part in at least 80 hours of 'community engagement,' including work, community service or a work program. That provision, however, would not take effect until the beginning of 2029 — which hardliners say is far too late. 'Literally, that's like a parent telling their 25-year-old living in the basement, 'You've got to get a job and move out, but you know what? I'm giving you four years to do it.' It's ridiculous. Nobody works that way,' said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) echoed that sentiment, saying he was 'a little disappointed.' 'Delaying a lot of these things are like hollow promises,' he added. 'They'll cut that in four years, or they'll phase it in over a longer period of time. And I'd rather see actually aggressive cuts.' Deficit hawks are also miffed that the GOP leadership did not go further and lower the federal matching rate for Medicaid, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP). Hardliners pushed for changes to the FMAP and placing a per-capita cap on people who get coverage from Medicaid expansion, two proposals that moderates dubbed red lines. In the end, centrists won that fight. 'We're still letting the states launder money through Medicaid by paying 90 percent of the cost for an able-bodied adult, when we pay for 57 percent of pregnant women, children, seniors and disabled,' said Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas). 'It's a money-laundering scheme by the states.' The airing of grievances came as Energy and Commerce debates its portion of the bill at a meeting poised to break the record for its longest markup —27 hours. Hardliners had pushed for significant spending cuts in the entire package, leading leadership to call for at least $1.5 trillion in slashes — $880 billion of which would come from Energy and Commerce. The panel achieved that goal: According to a draft CBO analysis circulated by Democrats, the bill would reduce federal spending by roughly $912 billion over the decade, with $715 billion coming from the health provision. The scorekeeper also said 8.6 million people would become uninsured. Those results are now drawing scrutiny and caution from both sides of the GOP's ideological spectrum, posing a difficult balancing act for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). While conservatives complain the cuts are too small, moderates are more guarded and appear to be nervous to back provisions that were not as significant as they could have been, but will still leave millions of more Americans uninsured. 'I'm still reading through it but obviously a lot of the draconian cuts that people were pushing for, I and others were able to prevent, so we're reading through the bill as it's written,' said Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who represents a swing district. 'There could be some changes there, too,' Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) said. 'There are a lot of people that are unhappy with a lot of provisions.' That hesitation means Johnson may have a difficult time ratcheting up Medicaid cuts to appease hardliners, as it would almost certainly be met with opposition from moderates. Johnson is remaining even-keeled. Asked by The Hill on Wednesday if he believes the deficit hawks are changing the rules mid-game by complaining about the lack of spending cuts after the CBO said the committee reached the minimum $880 billion, Johnson said their gripes are part of the process. 'No, I don't think the goalposts are being moved,' he said. 'I think everybody's just expressing their preferences for the final product and again, that's part of the process.' The debate over Medicaid cuts is just one disagreement over the GOP's blueprint. The Speaker is also grappling with a heated debate over the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which has also pitted moderates against conservatives. Republican centrists from high-tax blue states — including New York, New Jersey and California — have pushed for an increase to the SALT deduction cap, which currently sits at $10,000. The House Ways and Means Committee's portion of the bill proposes a $30,000 cap for individuals making $400,000 or less, a number that SALT Caucus members have vocally rejected. Johnson is now working with those lawmakers to find consensus, with moderates saying they will not support the final package without reasonable SALT relief for their constituents. On the other end of the conference, hardline conservatives are speaking out against a SALT deduction cap increase because of its costly price tag. Deficit hawks are warning that they will not get on board with a higher deduction cap unless it is paid for. 'My view on the SALT Caucus is that look, I get it, I get you're in that situation, but it costs money and you can't be the same group of people that are bitching or complaining about spending cuts in other areas,' Burlison said. 'If you want your SALT tax deductions it's got to be paid for, otherwise the American people are gonna pay it in debt and deficit and interest rates and inflation.' 'You can't have your cake and eat it too,' he continued. 'If you want your SALT tax deduction to go up, you need to find the savings. So don't complain.' Emily Brooks and Mike Lillis contributed.
