Latest news with #CongressionalBudgetAct
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - We need a bipartisan Congress to check presidential power
It is no coincidence that the first article of the U.S. Constitution, the one the Framers prioritized, defines the powers of Congress, not the president. The Framers assumed Congress would play the leading role under the new constitution, as it had through the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress. As Americans have witnessed since Jan. 20, the Framers assumed wrongly. And it is time to reassess what is best for the nation — the Framers' vision or the powers claimed by President Trump. In the 20th century and early in the 21st century, Congress ceded more power to the presidency in areas such as budget creation, diplomacy, war powers and law enforcement. Popular support accompanied those changes, particularly during the 1930s, the 1960s and the early 2000s as Americans demanded presidents 'get things done.' The first 100 days standard gained popular currency, which forced presidents to act quickly. Additionally, media coverage centered on the person of the president rather than the Congress. The latter appeared as an amorphous blob. No one could speak for the whole Congress. Disturbed by the excesses of the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations, Congress attempted to claw back some of its power through the War Powers Act, the Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Act. It also enacted the legislative veto that allowed Congress to override presidential actions, sometimes by doing nothing. But presidential power began to grow, particularly as divided government became more common. Presidents began to rely on executive orders to enact policy that formerly had been Congress' purview in areas such as gun control. Trump has taken presidential powers to another level entirely. He issued 26 executive orders on his first day. In his first hundred days, he signed 142. Plus, their scope is well beyond those of other presidents. They include gutting whole departments, cutting programs such as public television and public radio, ending DEI programs, authorizing massive immigrant deportation orders, and targeting individuals and corporations he felt harmed him. He has declared these orders are essential due to various national emergencies. The Framers established three branches of government to separate power, but also to check power held by each branch. Presidential power is now out of balance in relation to the other two branches. The trend has been going in that direction for many years, but now, with a president who is anxious to use such power, the effects of that imbalance are glaringly apparent. Some federal judges have checked presidential power by ruling that Trump's actions are unconstitutional or violate statutes. But the Trump administration is counting on the Supreme Court to back them up in most if not all the actions. However, the court may or may not do so, as indicated by its decision in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case directing the administration to facilitate his return. The question of whether to abide by the Supreme Court's decisions has rarely been a live one. But today it is, making many Americans wonder whether the judiciary will be an effective check on a rapacious president. Congress could and should check the president. Some members of Congress are working on legislation to do so. Others should join. But it cannot be partisan. One such recent example of a partisan effort was the Federalist Society's Article I Project, which targeted checking Democratic presidents but has been silent about Republican ones. Members of both parties need to come together to enact legislation that limits presidential powers regardless of who is president. The legislation should not be targeted at particular policies but at reining in presidential power generally to dictate economic policy, punish opponents or ignore congressional appropriations. Congressional Republicans would benefit since Congress would be checking a Democrat in the future and not just a Republican today. Members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. Preserving constitutional checks and balances to maintain our democratic system is a large part of that obligation. It is time for Congress to restore the balance in the Constitution the Framers so carefully crafted for our benefit. Richard Davis is a professor emeritus of political science at BYU. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
We need a bipartisan Congress to check presidential power
It is no coincidence that the first article of the U.S. Constitution, the one the Framers prioritized, defines the powers of Congress, not the president. The Framers assumed Congress would play the leading role under the new constitution, as it had through the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congress. As Americans have witnessed since Jan. 20, the Framers assumed wrongly. And it is time to reassess what is best for the nation — the Framers' vision or the powers claimed by President Trump. In the 20th century and early in the 21st century, Congress ceded more power to the presidency in areas such as budget creation, diplomacy, war powers and law enforcement. Popular support accompanied those changes, particularly during the 1930s, the 1960s and the early 2000s as Americans demanded presidents 'get things done.' The first 100 days standard gained popular currency, which forced presidents to act quickly. Additionally, media coverage centered on the person of the president rather than the Congress. The latter appeared as an amorphous blob. No one could speak for the whole Congress. Disturbed by the excesses of the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations, Congress attempted to claw back some of its power through the War Powers Act, the Congressional Budget Act and the Impoundment Act. It also enacted the legislative veto that allowed Congress to override presidential actions, sometimes by doing nothing. But presidential power began to grow, particularly as divided government became more common. Presidents began to rely on executive orders to enact policy that formerly had been Congress' purview in areas such as gun control. Trump has taken presidential powers to another level entirely. He issued 26 executive orders on his first day. In his first hundred days, he signed 142. Plus, their scope is well beyond those of other presidents. They include gutting whole departments, cutting programs such as public television and public radio, ending DEI programs, authorizing massive immigrant deportation orders, and targeting individuals and corporations he felt harmed him. He has declared these orders are essential due to various national emergencies. The Framers established three branches of government to separate power, but also to check power held by each branch. Presidential power is now out of balance in relation to the other two branches. The trend has been going in that direction for many years, but now, with a president who is anxious to use such power, the effects of that imbalance are glaringly apparent. Some federal judges have checked presidential power by ruling that Trump's actions are unconstitutional or violate statutes. But the Trump administration is counting on the Supreme Court to back them up in most if not all the actions. However, the court may or may not do so, as indicated by its decision in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case directing the administration to facilitate his return. The question of whether to abide by the Supreme Court's decisions has rarely been a live one. But today it is, making many Americans wonder whether the judiciary will be an effective check on a rapacious president. Congress could and should check the president. Some members of Congress are working on legislation to do so. Others should join. But it cannot be partisan. One such recent example of a partisan effort was the Federalist Society's Article I Project, which targeted checking Democratic presidents but has been silent about Republican ones. Members of both parties need to come together to enact legislation that limits presidential powers regardless of who is president. The legislation should not be targeted at particular policies but at reining in presidential power generally to dictate economic policy, punish opponents or ignore congressional appropriations. Congressional Republicans would benefit since Congress would be checking a Democrat in the future and not just a Republican today. Members of Congress swore to uphold the Constitution. Preserving constitutional checks and balances to maintain our democratic system is a large part of that obligation. It is time for Congress to restore the balance in the Constitution the Framers so carefully crafted for our benefit. Richard Davis is a professor emeritus of political science at BYU.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Reporter's Notebook: Power player on Capitol Hill
Whether or not congressional Republicans are able to pass President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" of tax and spending cuts may hinge on one person. Not a swing vote. Not someone like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., or Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who occasionally bucks their party. But someone you've probably never heard of. After all, Washington is stocked with power players. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. But how about Elizabeth MacDonough? House Freedom Caucus Chair Urges Johnson To Change Course On Senate Version Of Trump Budget Bill I ventured outside the Capitol onto the plaza near the Library of Congress to see if any of the tourists visiting Washington for the spring cherry blossoms had heard of Elizabeth MacDonough. There I came across Billy Coman from Dublin, Ireland, visiting Washington for the first time. "Here's a name that sounds kind of Irish," I said to Coman. "Who is Elizabeth MacDonough?" Read On The Fox News App Coman pondered the question for a moment. "Elizabeth MacDonough," Coman said with an Irish lilt. "Is that the comedian?" I asked a woman named Shirley from Anchorage, Alaska, if she knew the name. Trump Tax Cuts 'Top Priority' For Congress Says Top House Gop Leader "Oh s---. I don't know," she replied. I posed the same question to Julia Lowe from Washington state. "Have you ever heard the name Elizabeth MacDonough?" I asked. "It sounds familiar to me," answered Lowe. "Do you know who she is?" I countered. "A historical figure possibly or someone currently in government?" responded Lowe. Well, Elizabeth MacDonough is in fact in government. And when it comes to Congress, she's one of the most powerful people you've never heard of. MacDonough is the Senate parliamentarian. A sort of referee who decides what's allowed in the big, beautiful bill pushed by President Trump — based on special Senate budget rules. "The parliamentarian is pretty important," said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. "But parliamentarians don't have the last word to say about (the bill). The Senate governs the Senate. Not the parliamentarian." That's why Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., forged ahead on the Senate's latest framework for the tax cut package. Graham felt he didn't need to make his case before MacDonough for this phase. "As Budget Chairman, under Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act, I have the authority to determine baseline numbers for spending and revenue," said Graham. "Under that authority, I have determined that current policy will be the budget baseline regarding taxation." In other words, Graham felt he didn't need MacDonough to tell him the "baseline" to determine whether this package comports with special budgetary provisions in the Senate. But the next step in passing the tax cut bill could be trickier. Everyone will watch what MacDonough rules is in or out. In fact, her calls could alter the trajectory of the president's "big, beautiful bill." "We are in conversations, as you know, with the parliamentarian about the best way to get budget reconciliation we're trying to help across the finish line," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. Otherwise, the bill could face a Senate filibuster and likely die. So there's an advantage for Senate Republicans to handle their framework within the parameters of the unique budget rules — lest they run afoul of an adverse ruling from the parliamentarian. In fact, consulting with the parliamentarian mirrors football. Case in point, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. Tuberville was the head football coach at Ole Miss, Auburn, Texas Tech and Cincinnati before coming to Capitol Hill. "You've worked the refs before, and I've seen people work the parliamentarian," said yours truly to Tuberville. "We've had to work the parliamentarian since I've been here," replied Tuberville. "Sometimes you might get a surprise. But you've got to have a referee in the game. You can't just freelance." House conservatives are aiming to implement especially steep spending cuts in the tax cut package. But those special Senate budget rules make it hard for GOP senators to go as deep as the House would like. Some on the right are mystified about the role of the Senate parliamentarian. "It is an unusual thing that one unelected official has so much authority," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo. House members struggle to understand the purpose and power of the Senate parliamentarian. Some of that stems from the customary rivalry and suspicion between the House and Senate, which dates back nearly to the beginning of the republic. "The parliamentarian. Who is she? Who elected her? I don't know," mused House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Tex. "Where is it in the Constitution?" Well, Article I, Section 5 to be precise. That provision grants the House and Senate the right to create their own rules and standards of operation. The parliamentarian plays a key role in the budget reconciliation process — the mechanism Republicans are using to advance their tax cut and spending reduction bill. The Senate stuck around into the wee hours of Saturday morning, approving the latest budget framework crafted by Graham for the legislation. It's now onto the House. House GOP leaders would like to tackle the bill Wednesday. But they're starting midway through the week on the bill in case there are hiccups. Or worse. More than a handful of House Republicans say they oppose the Senate's latest framework. The House and Senate must approve the same blueprint in order to actually do the bill itself. That's key because the Senate needs a unified framework in place to use the budget reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster. And MacDonough's rulings on whether various provisions fit into this bill — in compliance with the Budget Act — could have sway. Budget rules do not allow the legislation to add to the deficit over a 10-year window. Tariffs are not in the bill. But Democrats claim tariffs and tax cuts are linked. "They're using tariff revenue to balance out the money that they're going to shovel to a bunch of billionaires," claimed Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, of the tax cuts. The Trump administration asserts that the tax cuts will ease tariff anxiety, which has rattled the markets in recent days. Johnson Faces Uphill Battle Keeping Gop Divisions From Derailing Trump Budget Bill "The sooner we can get certainty on tax, the sooner we can set the stage for the growth to resume," said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to colleague Bret Baier at the White House last week. Regardless, the House may struggle to align with the new Senate package. And it's likely the House must adjust to whatever the Senate requires in order to comply with the parliamentarian. There are a lot of players whom you will hear about in the next months as Republicans try to finish the bill. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Tex. All are key players as Republicans continue on this trek. It is often said in officiating that good referees are invisible. The ones you don't notice. But with so much at stake, it will be hard for Republicans to avoid noticing the calls by the article source: Reporter's Notebook: Power player on Capitol Hill
Fox News
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Reporter's Notebook: Power player on Capitol Hill
Whether or not congressional Republicans are able to pass President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" of tax and spending cuts may hinge on one person. Not a swing vote. Not someone like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., or Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who occasionally bucks their party. But someone you've probably never heard of. After all, Washington is stocked with power players. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. But how about Elizabeth MacDonough? I ventured outside the Capitol onto the plaza near the Library of Congress to see if any of the tourists visiting Washington for the spring cherry blossoms had heard of Elizabeth MacDonough. There I came across Billy Coman from Dublin, Ireland, visiting Washington for the first time. "Here's a name that sounds kind of Irish," I said to Coman. "Who is Elizabeth MacDonough?" Coman pondered the question for a moment. "Elizabeth MacDonough," Coman said with an Irish lilt. "Is that the comedian?" I asked a woman named Shirley from Anchorage, Alaska, if she knew the name. "Oh s---. I don't know," she replied. I posed the same question to Julia Lowe from Washington state. "Have you ever heard the name Elizabeth MacDonough?" I asked. "It sounds familiar to me," answered Lowe. "Do you know who she is?" I countered. "A historical figure possibly or someone currently in government?" responded Lowe. Well, Elizabeth MacDonough is in fact in government. And when it comes to Congress, she's one of the most powerful people you've never heard of. MacDonough is the Senate parliamentarian. A sort of referee who decides what's allowed in the big, beautiful bill pushed by President Trump — based on special Senate budget rules. "The parliamentarian is pretty important," said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. "But parliamentarians don't have the last word to say about (the bill). The Senate governs the Senate. Not the parliamentarian." That's why Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., forged ahead on the Senate's latest framework for the tax cut package. Graham felt he didn't need to make his case before MacDonough for this phase. "As Budget Chairman, under Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act, I have the authority to determine baseline numbers for spending and revenue," said Graham. "Under that authority, I have determined that current policy will be the budget baseline regarding taxation." In other words, Graham felt he didn't need MacDonough to tell him the "baseline" to determine whether this package comports with special budgetary provisions in the Senate. But the next step in passing the tax cut bill could be trickier. Everyone will watch what MacDonough rules is in or out. In fact, her calls could alter the trajectory of the president's "big, beautiful bill." "We are in conversations, as you know, with the parliamentarian about the best way to get budget reconciliation we're trying to help across the finish line," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. Otherwise, the bill could face a Senate filibuster and likely die. So there's an advantage for Senate Republicans to handle their framework within the parameters of the unique budget rules — lest they run afoul of an adverse ruling from the parliamentarian. In fact, consulting with the parliamentarian mirrors football. Case in point, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. Tuberville was the head football coach at Ole Miss, Auburn, Texas Tech and Cincinnati before coming to Capitol Hill. "You've worked the refs before, and I've seen people work the parliamentarian," said yours truly to Tuberville. "We've had to work the parliamentarian since I've been here," replied Tuberville. "Sometimes you might get a surprise. But you've got to have a referee in the game. You can't just freelance." House conservatives are aiming to implement especially steep spending cuts in the tax cut package. But those special Senate budget rules make it hard for GOP senators to go as deep as the House would like. Some on the right are mystified about the role of the Senate parliamentarian. "It is an unusual thing that one unelected official has so much authority," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo. House members struggle to understand the purpose and power of the Senate parliamentarian. Some of that stems from the customary rivalry and suspicion between the House and Senate, which dates back nearly to the beginning of the republic. "The parliamentarian. Who is she? Who elected her? I don't know," mused House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Tex. "Where is it in the Constitution?" Well, Article I, Section 5 to be precise. That provision grants the House and Senate the right to create their own rules and standards of operation. The parliamentarian plays a key role in the budget reconciliation process — the mechanism Republicans are using to advance their tax cut and spending reduction bill. The Senate stuck around into the wee hours of Saturday morning, approving the latest budget framework crafted by Graham for the legislation. It's now onto the House. House GOP leaders would like to tackle the bill Wednesday. But they're starting midway through the week on the bill in case there are hiccups. Or worse. More than a handful of House Republicans say they oppose the Senate's latest framework. The House and Senate must approve the same blueprint in order to actually do the bill itself. That's key because the Senate needs a unified framework in place to use the budget reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster. And MacDonough's rulings on whether various provisions fit into this bill — in compliance with the Budget Act — could have sway. Budget rules do not allow the legislation to add to the deficit over a 10-year window. Tariffs are not in the bill. But Democrats claim tariffs and tax cuts are linked. "They're using tariff revenue to balance out the money that they're going to shovel to a bunch of billionaires," claimed Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, of the tax cuts. The Trump administration asserts that the tax cuts will ease tariff anxiety, which has rattled the markets in recent days. "The sooner we can get certainty on tax, the sooner we can set the stage for the growth to resume," said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to colleague Bret Baier at the White House last week. Regardless, the House may struggle to align with the new Senate package. And it's likely the House must adjust to whatever the Senate requires in order to comply with the parliamentarian. There are a lot of players whom you will hear about in the next months as Republicans try to finish the bill. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Tex. All are key players as Republicans continue on this trek. It is often said in officiating that good referees are invisible. The ones you don't notice. But with so much at stake, it will be hard for Republicans to avoid noticing the calls by the parliamentarian.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Senate GOP has set itself up for a high-risk tax heist
Senate Republicans are setting up a major gamble to renew President Donald Trump's signature tax cuts later this year. In rolling out their new budget blueprint on Wednesday, GOP senators opted to punt on some of the most pressing questions about how their framework can survive Senate procedure. As it stands, the Republican ploy can end only one of two ways: embarrassing failure or the congressional equivalent of a high-stakes heist, breaking the law to dole out trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy. House and Senate Republicans have been at odds for months now about how to answer Trump's request to combine his entire agenda into one 'big, beautiful bill.' After House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., managed to squeak through a framework that combined tax cuts with Trump's other priorities, it fell to the Senate to follow suit. In hopes of avoiding a Democratic filibuster, the GOP's plan has been to use a process known as 'budget reconciliation.' The upside is that doing so would let the final bill pass with a simple majority. The downside is that the reconciliation process comes with a lot of rules and provisos that need to be met under the Congressional Budget Act. Of all those rules and provisos, there are three big ones that you need to know: The final reconciliation bill must focus only on changes to taxes and spending, things that are only 'merely incidental' to spending or revenues can be stripped out and require 60 votes to be put back in and, crucially, the changes can't increase deficits or reduce surpluses beyond a 10-year budget window. That last requirement has given the GOP a major headache as it has tried to make the tax cuts from Trump's first-term permanent. Doing so would absolutely count as increasing the deficit far beyond the 10-year window allowed under the current rules. Just extending the current rates that are set to expire would cost $4 trillion in that 10-year window, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate, far more than even the massive spending cuts Republicans can agree on. The budget framework that Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., debuted on Wednesday provides room for the Finance Committee to add no more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit through 2034. That isn't enough room to extend the Trump tax cuts, which were heavily tilted to the ultra-wealthy and corporations. But Republicans' solution is to simply pretend that extending those tax cuts doesn't cost anything. The only way this gambit works is by ignoring the fact that rates would increase again without congressional action. Instead, Republicans would try to count the cuts against a 'current policy baseline' that effectively would set the cost of renewal at $0. It's a formula that's never been tested — and if the Senate GOP had its way, it never would need to be. Everything that goes into a reconciliation bill must eventually go through the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, to ensure it follows the Budget Control Act's rules. It's arguably the most important job on Capitol Hill that almost no one knows exists. Rather than defend the baseline in front of MacDonough, as is typically done, Republicans decided to release their framework before getting a ruling. This is where things get risky for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who has decided that it's more important to pass a compromise framework with the House sooner rather than later. If Congress becomes locked into using this framework, then there's no wiggle room for the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and Means Committee to change it. Should the parliamentarian later decide that there's no way that these shenanigans pass muster, the whole process will need to start over again, or Republicans will have to let some of the tax cuts expire after all. The most obvious way out for Republicans is to overrule the parliamentarian, which requires only a simple majority. But Thune previously said that he wouldn't want to have his caucus overrule the parliamentarian on the floor, as doing so would be the first step to eliminating the filibuster entirely. The GOP caucus could try to replace MacDonough as parliamentarian with someone more pliable, as it did in 2001. But given her popularity among senators on both sides of the aisle, it seems unlikely the GOP will find a majority in support. Now the Senate is barreling ahead on this bit of legislative prestidigitation, with Republicans aiming for a vote later this week. Should it pass, it would then need to go back to the House for its approval before the two chambers' committees could finally get to work filling in the details. Even as that work is conducted, the time bomb that Graham and Thune have left in the framework could blow up the entire process at almost any point, right up until it's time for the final package to hit the Senate floor. The only questions then will be how much of Trump's agenda gets caught in the blast and how the GOP handles the fallout. This article was originally published on
