Latest news with #childtaxcredit
New York Times
5 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Tax Credit Increase Would Exclude Millions of Low-Income Children, Study Finds
While the giant domestic policy bill that Republicans pushed through the House last monthincludes tens of billions of dollars to increase child-rearing subsidies, millions of low-income children would not benefit because their parents earn too little, a new analysis shows. The change involves the child tax credit, a once-obscure segment of the tax code that distributes about $110 billion a year and has ignited partisan debates over poverty and inequality. Republicans say their support for the credit, which President Trump doubled in his first term, shows concern for ordinary families, while Democrats fault income tests that exclude the neediest parents. The G.O.P. bill raises the maximum credit to $2,500 per child, from $2,000, and includes virtually all middle- and upper-income families. But a third of children would not receive the full credit because their parents have low wages or lack jobs, according to the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. Families must reach income targets to receive the full benefit. Of the 22 million low-income children who would be denied the full credit under the House bill, 17 million would receive no additional help from the House bill, and five million would receive only part of the $500 increase, the study found. Those excluded from the maximum aid include 65 percent of children with single mothers, 51 percent of Black children, 44 percent of Latino children and 40 percent of children in rural areas. 'This is a very large federal expenditure on children, but low- and moderate-income families won't receive the full benefit, and that's where the money would do the most good,' said Sophie Collyer, a Columbia researcher and co-author of the study. The plan to raise the credit, which would cost nearly $25 billion a year, renews partisan jousting over the program's purpose. Republicans see it primarily as a tax cut, so they direct it toward families who owe income tax, although some needy families with no income tax bills receive partial payments. Democrats would give the credit to all low-income parents, regardless of how much they work or earn, essentially creating an income guarantee to fight child poverty. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CBS News
25-05-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Transcript: House Speaker Mike Johnson on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," May 25, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on May 25, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin with the passage of what President Trump is calling his "Big Beautiful Bill," and the man who got it through the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, who joins us from Benton, Louisiana. Good morning to you, Mr. Speaker. SPEAKER JOHNSON: Hey, good morning, and I wish a blessed Memorial Day weekend to everybody. MARGARET BRENNAN: Indeed. Well, you got this massive tax and border bill through, just barely, one vote margin. You pulled an all-nighter. Among other things, it will eliminate taxes on tips and overtime. Put about $50 billion towards the border wall and hiring Border Patrol agents, keep in place existing individual tax rates, create savings accounts for kids with a one-time deposit of $1,000, increase the child tax credit by about 500 bucks. The- the bill on this is estimated to be between four and $5 trillion over the next decade. How much do you think this is all going to cost? SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well, that's about the right estimate. But at the same time, we have historic savings for the American people. Cuts to government to make it more efficient and effective and- and work better for the people. That was a big campaign promise of President Trump and a big promise of ours, and we're going to achieve that. So in the calculation here, there's more than $1.5 trillion in savings, Margaret, for the people. And that's- that's the largest amount- biggest cut in government, really, in at least 30 years and if you adjust for inflation, probably the largest in the history of government. So we're proud of what we produced here. We've checked all the boxes, where all the things that you mentioned in existence- in addition to American energy dominance, investing in our military industrial base, which is appropriate for us to talk about this weekend and so many other priorities and that's why we call it the "One Big Beautiful Bill. I think arguably, it's the most consequential legislation that Congress will pass in many generations, and it's a long time coming. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, just this morning, we did hear from some of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate, where this heads next, that they can't support the bill as it is written. I think you know this. Senator Rand Paul said the cuts are 'wimpy and anemic,' 'the math doesn't add up,' it will 'explode the debt.' In addition to that political criticism, you've already seen-- SPEAKER JOHNSON: --Yeah, Senator Paul and I are– MARGARET BRENNAN: --Moody's credit rating agency downgrade American credit and Goldman Sachs says that this bill will not offset the damage from the President's tariffs. Isn't this an economic gamble? SPEAKER JOHNSON: No, it's not an economic gamble. It's a big investment. And look, this- what this bill is going to do is be jet fuel to the U.S. economy. It is going to foster a pro growth economy. What do we mean by that? Because we're reducing taxes, we're reducing regulations, we're going to increase and incentivize American manufacturing again. And what will- the effect this will have in the economy is that entrepreneurs and risk takers and job creators will have an easier time in doing that. They will allow for more jobs and more opportunity for more people, and wages will increase. Now, Margaret, this is not a theoretical exercise. We did this already in the first Trump administration. After just the first two years, we brought about the greatest economy in the history of the world, not just the U.S. because we did it- followed a very simple formula, we cut taxes and we cut regulations. This time-- MARGARET BRENNAN: You didn't do it in the middle of a tariff war. SPEAKER JOHNSON: --we're doing that on steroids. MARGARET BRENNAN: In the first administration, there was sequencing– SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well, no. MARGARET BRENNAN: You got tax reform- the Republicans got tax reform through and held off the tariff war. Goldman Sachs says, "the hit to growth from tariffs will more than offset the boost to growth from the fiscal package." That's Goldman Sachs. SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well- well, I know. I respect Goldman Sachs, but I think what they're discounting here is the growth that will be spurred on by this legislation, and the fact that the so-called tariff war is beginning to subside already. You've got over 75 countries that are negotiating new, more fair trade agreements for the U.S. right now because of the President's insistence that that be done and it was decades overdue. That is going to benefit every American, it's going to benefit the consumers. You know, they howled when the first tariffs- reciprocal tariffs policy was announced, and they said that prices would skyrocket. That simply hasn't happened. Many of those early estimates were far off, and that's being proven now. So what I think will happen is the tariffs, you know, contest will subside. This legislation will pass and get the economy going again and people will feel that. They'll see it in their own pocketbooks, in their own opportunity and every American household is going to benefit by these policies. MARGARET BRENNAN: You know Walmart has already said that it will have to raise prices. It's not theoretical. And the President on Friday was talking about even more tariffs, this time on Apple and others. But back- back to your end of the- of the deal here, for this tax relief, you talked about the cuts to pay for it all. You are eliminating subsidized federal student loans so the government will no longer cover the interest on debt while borrowers' in school. You're eliminating 500 billion in clean energy subsidies and you're terminating early tax breaks for electric vehicles. Alongside that, you're carrying out about a trillion in reductions to Medicaid and food stamps. We looked at your home state, and the projection is that nearly 200,000 Louisianans will lose their Medicaid coverage because of this. How do you defend that to your constituents? SPEAKER JOHNSON: We have not cut Medicaid, and we have not cut SNAP. What we're doing, Margaret, is working on fraud, waste and abuse, and everyone in Louisiana and around the country understands that that's a responsibility of Congress. Just in- in Medicaid, for example, you've got 1.4 million illegal aliens receiving those benefits. That is not what Medicaid is intended for. It's intended for vulnerable populations, for young, single, pregnant women and the elderly and the disabled and people who desperately need those resources. Right now, they're being drained by fraud, waste and abuse. You've got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now nationwide who are able-bodied workers, young men, for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system. If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You're cheating the system. And no one in the country believes that that's right. So there's a- there's a moral component to what we're doing. And when you make young men work, it's good for them, it's good for their dignity, it's good for their self worth, and it's good for the community that they live in. MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure, but in- first of all, just undocumented immigrants, you know, are not eligible for food stamps or Medicaid. Some-- SPEAKER JOHNSON: And yet they're receiving them that's the problem– MARGARET BRENNAN: --lawfully present immigrants are. So the 190,000 Louisianans that are projected by KFF as losing their Medicaid. Your position is they were just lazy, not working? That they were undocumented? What about them? How do you defend that they will be losing their benefits? SPEAKER JOHNSON: No. What we're talking about again, is able-bodied workers, many of whom are refusing to work because they're gaming the system. And when we make them work, it'll be better for everybody, a win-win-win for all. By the way, the work requirements, Margaret, is not some onerous, burdensome thing. It's a minimum of 20 hours a week. You could either be working or be in a job program, a job training program, or volunteering in your community. This is not some, some onerous thing ,this is common sense. And when the American people understand what we are doing here, they applaud it. This is a wildly popular thing, because we have to preserve the programs. What we're doing is strengthening Medicaid and SNAP so that they can exist, so that they'll be there for the people that desperately need it the most, and it's not being taken advantage of. And this is something that everybody in Congress, Republicans and Democrats should agree to. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, one of your Republican colleagues over in the Senate has been very vocal about his concern in regard to what you're doing to Medicaid. Josh Hawley has been arguing it is 'morally wrong and politically suicidal' to slash health insurance for the working poor. He said the cost sharing language will force people at or just over the federal poverty level to pay as much as $35 for a medical visit, which means working people will pay more. How do you defend that? Because you know, in the Senate, they are going to make changes to this. SPEAKER JOHNSON: My friend Josh Hawley is a fiscal conservative as I am. We don't want to slash benefits. And again, I make this very clear. We are not cutting Medicaid. We are not cutting SNAP. We're working in the elements of fraud, waste and abuse. SNAP, for example, listen to the statistics, in 2024 over $11 billion in SNAP payments were- were erroneous. I mean, that's- that's a number that everyone acknowledges is real. It may be much higher than that-- [CROSSTALK] MARGARET BRENNAN: Louisiana is like-- SPEAKER JOHNSON: But here's the problem, the states-- MARGARET BRENNAN: -- the second largest recipient of food stamps in the country, sir. SPEAKER JOHNSON: Let me explain it, Margaret. Let me explain it. The states- the states are not properly administering this because they don't have enough skin in the game. So what we've done in the bill is add some- just a modest state sharing component, so that they'll pay attention to that, so that we can reduce fraud. Why? Again, so that it is preserved for the people that need it the most. This is common sense, Margaret. It's good government, and everybody on both sides of the aisle should agree to that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Senator Hawley objects to that cost sharing language. He is the one leveraging that criticism. This is going to change, you know that, when it goes to the Senate. How do you- how do you put Republicans up to have to defend these things when they are facing an election in 17 months? SPEAKER JOHNSON: We got almost every vote in the House because we worked on it for more than a year in finding the exact balance of reforms to the program so that we can save them and secure them. I think- I think Senator Hawley will see that when he looks into the details of what we passed on Thursday. This is a big thing, it's an historic thing, once in a generation legislation. We call it the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' because it's going to do so much and the America first agenda will be delivered for the people just as we promised. And look, I had lunch with my Senate Republican colleagues on Tuesday, their weekly luncheon, and I encouraged them to remember that we are one team. It's the Senate and the House Republicans together that will deliver this- this ball over the goal line, so to speak. And I encouraged them to make as few modifications as possible, remembering that I have a very delicate balance on our very diverse Republican caucus over in the House. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, well, you- you have five to six Republicans from high tax states who are not going to want to see that change in the state and local tax deductions and there's not a commitment to that in the Senate. Can you still get this through the house without SALT? SPEAKER JOHNSON: Look, we- there's got to be a modification to SALT, and as I've explained to my Senate colleagues many times, you know, they don't have SALT caucus in the Senate because they're all from red states, but in the House, we do have a number of members who are elected in places like New York and California and New Jersey, and they have to provide some relief to their constituents. Those are what we call our majority makers. Those are the people who are elected in the toughest districts and help us have the numbers to keep the majority in the House, and so, this is political reality. We'd love to cut more costs. We'd love to do even more, but we have to deal within the realm of possibility. And I think this is a huge leap forward for fiscal responsibility, for a government that's effective and accountable to the people and real relief for hard working Americans, and they well deserve it. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well before I let you go, I want to ask you about another provision that was tucked into this bill. Democrats say it is weakening separation of powers and punishing the courts. It's a specific provision that would restrict a federal court's power to enforce injunctions with contempt, unless there was a bond attached to it. Sounds really weedy, but it's causing a lot of outcry. If this might get stripped out in the Senate anyway, why did you bother to stick it in? SPEAKER JOHNSON: Well, we bothered to stick it in because that's our responsibility in Congress. It is about separation of powers, and right now you have activist judges, a handful of them around the country, who are abusing that power. They're issuing these nationwide injunctions. They're- they're engaging in political acts from the bench, and that is not what our system is intended for. And people have lost their- their- their faith in our system of justice. We have to restore it and bringing about a simple reform like that is something that I think everybody should applaud. MARGARET BRENNAN: Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, thank you for your time this morning. 'Face the Nation' will be back in a minute. Stay with us.
New York Times
21-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Don't Let ‘Pronatalists' Define What's Family-Friendly
When I was eight months pregnant with my younger daughter in 2016, I got a $1,000 bill. The hospital wanted some cold, hard cash up front, even though the administrators knew we had health insurance through my husband's job. 'What if I gave birth in the car on the way there? Would we even get a refund?' I fumed. But we wrote the check anyway. A few months after my daughter was born in that hospital, we got an $8,000 bill for a blood test panel my obstetrician swore would be covered by insurance. (I was able to haggle it down a bit after many phone calls — what a fun way to spend my brief maternity leave.) I thought about this moment last week with a rueful chuckle when I read that some Republicans, like Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, support a child tax credit with the explicit intention of both raising the birthrate and encouraging more parents to stay home with their children. 'It gives them that opportunity to say, 'Oh my gosh, we can actually raise our kids,'' Hawley said. My family would have welcomed the extra cash, for sure, but $5,000 — the amount floated for both the baby bonus and the tax credit — barely covered the cost of birthing a second healthy kid nine years ago, much less would provide enough of a cushion for either of us to leave paid employment, or have a third kid. I agree with Senator Hawley that expanding the child tax credit is a good idea, and it's one that has had bipartisan backing. But while we should do anything we can to bump up the meager support we give to new parents, the idea that $5,000 is a replacement for any kind of job is pretty silly. This kind of policy push comes at a time when the Trump administration has asked a gaggle of self-proclaimed 'pronatalists' for their advice on how to raise the birthrate. Their suggestions include a 'National Medal of Motherhood' for women who have six or more children and educating people about natural fertility charting. Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation and a father of nine, signed a memo earlier this year directing his department to prioritize 'communities with marriage and birthrates higher than the national average' — even though there's not evidence that doing so would do much to support the majority of American families or encourage them to have more children. The hard truth is that birthrates have fallen all over the world, and we don't know that there's any single public policy lever that entices people to have children. As the demographer Jennifer Sciubba put it in The Hill, 'governments are not the driving force behind individual decisions over whether or how many children to have. They've always played at most a supporting role, even when fertility rates were high, and their ability to raise the rates in a low-fertility world is limited.' Inviting a set of mostly conservative pronatalists to set the agenda for family policies is a mistake, because they're framing the issue all wrong. We shouldn't be asking: How do we get Americans to have more babies? We should be asking: How do we make life better for parents and children in a way that benefits society? I called Sciubba, who is also the president and chief executive of the Population Reference Bureau, to ask her how, if we could somehow start from scratch, we could improve the lives of families in the United States. She told me that she would focus on local policy above all, because it would allow for more flexibility and acknowledge the huge diversity of Americans' backgrounds and desires. 'The way that we've talked about this pronatalism these days has been a one-size-fits-all approach,' Sciubba said, and that's not productive. Parents want wildly different things, and even the same parents want different things at different points in their children's lives. Though some conservatives are implying that Americans are clamoring to permanently leave the paid work force to manage the domestic sphere, only 22 percent of women and 14 percent of men want to stay at home to manage family and household responsibilities, according to Gallup polling from earlier this year. A pro-family policy would allow families to make decisions around work that best suit them, for instance. Parents, and especially mothers, may go in and out of the work force, or switch between full and part-time employment based on their caregiving needs and the age of their children. There was a lot of discussion last year about how, because you can't fit three car seats in a sedan, car seat laws discourage Americans from having a third child. But we rarely talk about how family-unfriendly city architecture and transportation are, even though 80 percent of Americans live in cities. Ideally, having policy be more local would also allow it to be less partisan. Maybe in a state like South Dakota a family-friendly policy would include tweaking the car seat law or improving the quality of rural roads, but in New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago, local government could incentivize building apartments with courtyards, which Bloomberg's Alexandra Lange argues provide both affordable middle-class housing and safe areas for kids to play. Of course, car seats and courtyards alone won't make the United States an ideal place to raise a family. But we should still start thinking about more bespoke solutions rather than relying on federal fixes that are unlikely to be forthcoming any time soon. America is never going to solve our problems by being Finland — a place smaller than California that has fewer people in it than New York City. What's definitely not family-friendly is the set of proposals in the 'big, beautiful bill' making its way through Congress, which include cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, and increased work requirements to qualify for health care. Making sure all children — and their parents, especially pregnant women — have access to high-quality, consistent health care and nutrition is probably the most vital set of family-friendly policies the United States could enact. The Trump administration is also working on suggestions to lower the expense of in vitro fertilization, but I'm not sure how it can possibly square that goal with its overall zeal to cut medical costs from the federal ledger. I don't think most mothers want medals, no matter how many children they have. They want to be able to make ends meet with dignity, and our country is making that harder every day. End Notes
Wall Street Journal
21-05-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's Economic Agenda Hinges on Tax Bill That Divides His Own Party
WASHINGTON—President Trump's multitrillion-dollar economic agenda hinges on fractious GOP lawmakers who are at odds over the details of a tax package that could determine their fate in next year's midterm elections. Trump is betting that the legislation will win over voters who are skeptical of his stiff tariffs, which threaten to raise prices for American consumers. The bill contains versions of his campaign-trail pledge to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits, and boosts the child tax credit.
Bloomberg
20-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Malliotakis: Failure to Pass Tax Bill ‘Not An Option'
CC-Transcript 00:00Look, I can't speak for my colleagues. I know that those who are in Long Island, Westchester County, they face higher property taxes than we do in my district. So, you know, I think, though, at some point you need to know what the best deal is and just take it. I think that it's not just the 30,000 that my constituents are going to benefit from. You know, a $30,000 deduction on salt not only covers 98% of my district, but it will put thousands of dollars into the pockets of my constituents, allowing them to keep more of their hard earned money. And then on top of that, you have the child tax credit, which doubled under Tcja, and we're going to add another $500, making it a 20 $500 per child tax credit for families with children. And if you're a senior citizen, $4,000 additional deduction, which will be roughly $6,000 total per senior citizen. So if you're a married couple, you're talking about $12,000 deduction. If you earn up to $75,000 as an individual or $150,000 as a married couple. And then it phases down when you're when you're up until when your salary gets to 175,000. Individual three 54,000 for a married couple. So it's a significant tax relief we're talking about for the middle class. And we need to get this bill done because not only would you see none of this stuff happen, the standard deduction will be cut in half. The child tax credit would be cut in half. All of these lower income tax brackets that every single American benefited from would actually then go back up, which, you know, we're talking about trillions of dollars in taxes, not just for individuals, but for businesses as well. And so it is it is critical that we come together and unite and pass this one beautiful bill, which, you know, is not just about the tax cuts, it's about border security, giving our agents the tools they need to do their job. The president said an amazing job securing our border and deporting criminals since he's taken office. But they need more resources. They need more manpower. And so this bill would also address that. And then also, really, when it comes to domestic energy, significant production, we'll see as a result of this bill as well. So it really is incredibly important for our economy that we get this done. Cannot allow a tax cut to expire or, by the way, a debt default, which would happen if we don't get the job done. Well, so congressman or Congresswoman, would it be correct to characterize your view here is it's more important for these members who come from swing districts to take advantage of the majority that Republicans currently have to get this bill passed rather than worry about extending that majority beyond 2026? Because that's their argument there in swing districts, if you want to hold onto the majority, they need to make sure they get a higher number here. Is that the wrong way to think about it now? Look, I think I think tripling the salt deduction is a huge win. If they can get it to quadruple to a $40,000 deduction, that is really significant and that is saving constituents across New York thousands of dollars. And so people will see this the result of this in 2026 when they do their taxes. They'll see that they're saving money not just because of a salt deduction or an increase in the standard deduction if they choose that. But because of the child tax credit, because of the senior bonus deduction and because of all the other job creating pro-growth policies and and in tax policy that will be in this bill. Look, bonus depreciation, interest deductibility, research and development 199 A these are all significant, incredibly significant provisions for our economy, for small businesses and large businesses alike. The corporate rate that is also very critical to our economy. Look at the tcja people know it was millions of jobs were created. You had millions of people lifted out of poverty. You're the lowest unemployment among African-Americans and Hispanics. It was significant. We never even saw the full potential, sadly, because of the COVID pandemic. But we can't let any of this expire. We need to not only extend it, make as many provisions as we can permanent, and then add the new the new provisions that President Trump promised on the campaign trail. And that's what this bill does. I don't know if you think the president's visit to Capitol Hill today will actually change minds, Congresswoman, but he was quoted in that meeting is to say, if you lose because of salt, you were going to lose anyway. And I wonder if you actually agree with the principle of that statement. Look, I don't think an election comes down to the salt deduction. And if you are tripling the deduction, you are winning for your constituents, you are delivering relief, you're delivering results. And that's that's what needs to be messaged out there. When you go back home again. I go back home and I'm I'm telling my constituents that not only are we tripling the deduction, 98% of our district will be covered if we're able to quadruple it, I'm sure all of my district will be covered. But I've always been focused in the middle class here. I've never been focused on, you know, the billionaires or the millionaires. And I think a majority of Congress has been focused on these middle class tax cuts. And that's what this that's what this bill does. And I think it may change. And I think what the next the next offer that comes out of the speaker's offer should be the one that is accepted because we need to move forward. We need to pass this bill before Memorial Day. We need to deliver these wins. Because if people see, look, if we do nothing, constituents will see a tax hike. That's the bottom line, and then you will lose an election. I say let's do what we can here. Significant relief for state and local taxes. And also let's hold our mayor and governor accountable. Let's remember the reason we need salt relief to begin with. We need it because our mayor, our governor, Kathy Hochul, the state legislature, the Democrats that run New York, are taxing New Yorkers to death. They could easily cut personal income tax rates just like President Trump did in 2017. They choose not to. They can easily cap property taxes. New York City is the only county. It's the only city municipality in New York that does not have a property tax cap. They choose not to. Instead, our mayor and the city council keep increasing the property tax levy year after year after year, hammering New Yorkers to waste their money on things like, you know, 12 billions of dollars for migrant shelters so criminals can wreak havoc on our streets. It is ludicrous. And so, you know, we as a community, as a city, have to also take responsibility and vote for people who don't do that to us. Congresswoman, of course, you are now satisfied on the salt issue, but that is one of the only outs or isn't the only outstanding issue still in these negotiations. You much earlier in this process. We're also one of the lawmakers who were raising concerns about cuts to Medicaid being too steep, going beyond waste, fraud and abuse to knowing there are still conservative holdouts who are pushing for changes, for example, to the federal share of Medicaid payments. Other changes, if the speaker were to acquiesce to some of those desires in order to secure those votes, does he risk losing yours? He'll lose a lot of votes if they choose to lower the percentage that New York or any other state receives in matching funds for our traditional Medicaid population. Right now, New York receives 50%. I made it very clear from the beginning that I will not support that being lowered and also the per capita caps on the traditional Medicaid. That is incredibly important, where New York could potentially kick in a little more, have a little more skin in the game is on the expansion where New York only pays 10%. The federal government picks 90% of the share. That I don't think is going to change. It could change, but that is very different than saying we're going to cut the 50% match that New York receives on the Medicaid. I fought very hard to make sure that that provision was left out, and many other members also want to see that out. So I don't I can't imagine that that would go in at this point. In this stage. I think we have the proper balance here on the Medicaid. We are focused on the fraud, waste and abuse. We're focused on making sure that the illegal immigrants do not benefit from our Medicaid dollars, and we are ensuring that there are work requirements for able bodied individuals without dependents who are of working age. That is very reasonable. It is supported by 75% or more of the country. So let's stick to the plan here. Let's focus on what we need to do. Let's get the job done this week and let's deliver this victory for not just the Republicans and President Trump, but for the entire country moving this ball forward. Well, you've framed this as an awfully important day here, Congresswoman. And if things are going to stay on track, it will need to be whether we get a deal on salt or some of the other concerns that we've talked about. I wonder if you've received any assurances from your colleagues who are members of the Freedom Caucus, a couple of them who serve on the Rules Committee. Any assurances that things are going to go smoothly at 1:00 in the morning when this bill hits rules and that anybody with some protest might use their time on the floor as opposed to committee, what's going to happen in the wee hours of the morning? Look, I hope I hope the bill gets passed and I would tell my colleagues is let's focus on incremental wins here. We're not going to get get everything we want all in this one bill. But this is significant. We're saving the American taxpayers money, making sure their money is being spent appropriately, not on waste, fraud and abuse. We're rooting that out. We're going to allow these these economy to thrive and build on the successes of the tax cut and jobs up to 2017, which we know is successful and was responsible for lifting wages and bringing people out of poverty and giving them jobs. And we cannot afford a $4 trillion tax hike on America. We have to get this done. And what I would also say is, look, we have a $37 trillion debt. Yes, we all want to address that, but we need to do it incrementally. This was created over four decades. Right. We're going to change it overnight. But whatever we can accomplish as a team, as a Republican United team, will be much better than if you have to work with the Democrats across the aisle. It'll be much more watered down and you won't get the wins that we have here because they don't believe in the tax cuts that we believe for the middle class. They have made it very clear that they would allow all these tax provisions to expire if they had control or they had their way. So let's work together. Let's do the best we can, fight as hard as you can for your district. But when it comes time to vote, you have to vote for it because we need to move this ball forward. And failure is just simply not an option.
