Federal Budget (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares66 Views

    Republicans Writing Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Face Risks on Medicaid

    by

    Representatives from swing districts face tough votes as soon as next week, when key House panels are scheduled to consider legislation that would cut popular programs to pay for President Trump’s agenda.Gabe Evans, then a Republican state lawmaker in Colorado, defeated a Democratic member of Congress in November by less than 1 percentage point — just 2,449 votes — writing his ticket to Washington.Now Mr. Evans, 39, is helping to write legislation that could cement his own ticket back home.The first-term congressman, whose swing district just north of Denver includes 151,749 Medicaid recipients, sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Republican budget resolution that lays the groundwork for sweeping legislation to enact President Trump’s domestic agenda instructs the panel, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, to slash spending by $880 billion over the next decade to help pay for a large tax cut. That number is impossible to reach without substantially reducing the cost of Medicaid, the government program that provides health insurance for lower-income Americans.As Republicans in Congress struggle to coalesce around the core pieces of what Mr. Trump calls his “one big, beautiful bill,” Mr. Evans and other G.O.P. lawmakers from some of the most competitive districts in the country are facing committee votes next week to approve cuts to popular programs that could come back to haunt them politically.And Democrats are gleeful at the prospect of Republican incumbents going on the record supporting the effort.“These members of Congress won with fewer votes than the number of people in their district on Medicaid,” said Jesse Ferguson, a veteran Democratic strategist and a former spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Voting for this is like being the captain of the Titanic and deciding to intentionally hit the iceberg.”The group includes Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Republican of Iowa, who also sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee and is on even shakier ground than Mr. Evans, despite having warded off a challenger multiple times. Last year, Ms. Miller-Meeks, who represents 132,148 Medicaid recipients, won her seat by 0.2 percent, or 799 votes. Her local office in Davenport has been besieged by demonstrators concerned about spending cuts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares54 Views

      in Elections

      Someone Should Tell Trump He’s About to Make the Trade Deficit Worse

      by

      There are many reasons President Trump should not be pushing Congress to pass huge tax cuts, but here’s one you may not have heard: Budget deficits and trade deficits are twins. When the former go up, so, generally, do the latter. So at the same moment Mr. Trump is upending the global economy in a feckless attempt to eliminate America’s trade deficit, he’s essentially pressuring Congress to increase it.Here’s how it happens. The United States buys a lot of goods from other countries, and we pay for the goods with dollars. But those dollars are no good abroad, so the countries we buy from invest them here. Some of the money goes, directly or indirectly, into businesses that are raising cash to build new data centers or expand natural gas facilities or construct new apartment complexes. Other dollars go into Treasury bonds or bills, which the federal government uses to fund our large budget deficit. (The same thing happens in reverse when other countries buy from the United States — but to a lesser degree, since our imports are larger than our exports.)If the budget deficit rises, American investors could theoretically cover the shortfall, but that would mean putting their money in Treasury securities rather than businesses and their capital needs. The other option is that foreign countries amass more dollars and plow them back into the U.S. economy. How would they get those additional dollars? From all the German cars and Chinese electronics and imported beer that Americans will buy with the money from their tax cuts.More generally, a larger budget deficit will require the government to borrow more money, which drives up interest rates. Higher interest rates mean a stronger dollar, which makes it more expensive for people in other countries to buy our products, cheaper for us to buy theirs, and thus the trade deficit widens.So cutting taxes, as Mr. Trump has told Congress to do, will drive up the budget deficit — and the trade deficit. All of this may seem counterintuitive, but it’s one of the few things that economists agree about.The budget deficit is already worryingly high and the tax cuts Mr. Trump is seeking would make it even larger. Last year the United States ran a $1.8 trillion budget deficit, or 6 percent of the gross domestic product — higher than at any other time except during World War II, the late-2000s financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic — despite strong economic growth and no unusual emergencies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares175 Views

      in Elections

      White House Eyes Overhaul of Federal Housing Aid to the Poor

      by

      The White House is considering deep cuts to federal housing programs, including a sweeping overhaul of aid to low-income families, in a reconfiguration that could jeopardize millions of Americans’ continued access to rental assistance funds.The potential changes primarily concern federal housing vouchers, including those more commonly known as Section 8. The aid generally helps the poorest tenants cover the monthly costs of apartments, town homes and single-family residences.Administration officials recently discussed cutting or canceling out the vouchers and other rental assistance programs and potentially replacing them with a more limited system of housing grants, perhaps sent to states, according to three people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the confidential discussions. The overhaul would be included in President Trump’s new budget, which is expected to be sent to Capitol Hill in the coming weeks.The exact design and cost of the retooled program is unclear, and any such change is likely to require approval from Congress, as White House budgets on their own do not carry the force of law.But people familiar with the administration’s thinking said the overhaul under discussion would most likely amount to more than just a technical change, resulting in fewer federal dollars for low-income families on top of additional cuts planned for the rest of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.Federal voucher programs currently provide assistance to about 2.3 million low-income families, according to the government’s estimates, who enroll through their local public-housing authorities. The aid is part of a broader universe of rental assistance programs that are set to exceed $54 billion this fiscal year. But the annual demand for these subsidies is far greater than the available funds, creating a sizable wait list as rents are rising nationally.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk and Social Security’s Effort to Curb Illegal Immigration

      by

      As Elon Musk continues to argue that Social Security drives illegal immigration, a new effort at the agency aims to curb it.One hallmark of Elon Musk’s 12 weeks in government has been his focus on Social Security.He has sent one of his closest advisers to work at the Social Security Administration. He has falsely insisted that the program is rife with fraud. And he has depicted the entitlement as a tool — a “giant magnet,” to be specific — that he says entices illegal immigrants to come to the United States.That last part has turned Social Security into a major focal point of Musk’s unfounded belief that Democrats have allowed immigrants into the United States as part of a scheme to tilt the electorate in their favor.A team of my colleagues has reported that Musk is now driving big changes at the Social Security Administration that have braided aspects of his rhetoric about the agency directly into policy. The agency is placing certain immigrants — people who are very much alive — on the agency’s list of dead people, cutting them off from crucial financial services in an effort to push them to leave the country.I called my colleague Alexandra Berzon to talk about this reporting, and she explained that, according to the White House’s own accounting, the targeted migrants did not receive much in the way of government benefits — and none of them received Social Security.The new effort, she explained, is less about cost-cutting than it is about getting the Social Security Administration into the business of immigration enforcement, a push that has deeply alarmed current and former employees of the agency.Explain to me what you and our colleagues discovered when reporting this story. How is the Trump administration using Social Security as a tool for immigration policy?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      House Passes G.O.P. Budget After Conservative Revolt Collapses

      by

      The House on Thursday narrowly adopted a Republican budget blueprint for slashing taxes and government spending, after hard-line conservatives concerned that it would balloon the nation’s debt ended a revolt that had threatened to derail President Trump’s domestic agenda.Approval of the plan, which was in doubt until nearly the very end, was a victory for Republican leaders and Mr. Trump. It allowed them to move forward with crafting major legislation to enact a huge tax cut, financed with deep reductions in spending on federal programs, and pushing it through Congress over Democratic opposition.“It is time for us to act so that we can get on with the real work,” Representative Kevin Hern, Republican of Oklahoma, said during debate on the floor. “In passing this budget framework, we are unlocking the process to deliver on unleashing American energy production, permanently securing our southern and northern borders, and making tax cuts permanent for small businesses and working families.”But approval came only after a mutiny on the House floor on Tuesday night that underscored the deep divisions Republicans still have to bridge in order to push through what Mr. Trump has called his “big, beautiful bill.” It forced Speaker Mike Johnson to delay a planned vote on the measure after he spent more than an hour Wednesday night huddled with the holdouts, trying without success to persuade them to support it.The vote on Thursday was 216 to 214, with two Republicans opposing the measure. All Democrats present voted against the plan, which they said would pave the way for cuts to Medicaid and other vital safety net programs that would harm Americans, all to pay for large tax cuts for the wealthiest.“You target earned benefits and things that are important to the American people, like Medicaid,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader, said, addressing Republicans. “And what are you doing it for? What is it in service of? All to pass massive tax breaks for your billionaire donors like Elon Musk.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Plan to Skirt Senate Rules to Push Through More Tax Cuts

      by

      G.O.P. leaders are planning to use the “nuclear option” to steer around the Senate’s in-house referee and allow the use of a gimmick that makes trillions of dollars in tax cuts appear to be free.For decades, senators looking to push major budget and tax legislation through Congress on a simple majority vote have had to win the blessing of a single unelected figure on Capitol Hill.The Senate parliamentarian, a civil servant who acts as the arbiter and enforcer of the chamber’s byzantine rules, has traditionally been in a position to make or break entire presidential agendas. That includes determining whether budget and tax legislation can be fast-tracked through Congress and shielded from a filibuster, allowing it to pass along party lines through a process known as reconciliation.Now, in their zeal to deliver President Trump’s domestic policy agenda in “one big beautiful bill” of spending and tax cuts, Senate Republicans are trying to steer around the parliamentarian, busting a substantial congressional norm in the process.The strategy would allow them to avoid getting a formal thumbs up or thumbs down on their claim that extending the tax cuts that Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017 would cost nothing — a gimmick that would make it easier for them cram as many tax reductions as possible into their bill without appearing to balloon the deficit.In recent days, all eyes have been on Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, to see whether she would bless the trick, smoothing the path for the G.O.P. bill. But on Wednesday, Republicans signaled that they planned to take extraordinary action to go around her altogether.Rather than have Ms. MacDonough weigh in, they asserted that Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as chairman of the Budget Committee, could unilaterally decide the cost of the legislation, citing a 1974 budget law. Senate Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new budget resolution they planned to put to a vote as early as this week. And Mr. Graham declared in a statement that he considered an extension of the 2017 tax cuts to be cost-free.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Could Run Out of Cash by May, Budget Office Predicts

      by

      The Congressional Budget Office said that the so-called X-date could occur as early as spring if Congress does not lift or suspend the nation’s debt limit.The U.S. could run out of money to pay its bills by late May if Congress does not raise or suspend the nation’s debt limit, the Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday.The forecast puts added pressure on Congress and the Trump administration to address the borrowing cap, which restricts the total amount of money that the United States is authorized to borrow to fund the government and meet its financial obligations. A protracted standoff later this year could rattle markets and complicate President Trump’s plans to enact more tax cuts.The C.B.O. noted that its forecast is subject to uncertainty over how much tax revenue the federal government will collect this year. It expects that the United States will have sufficient funds to keep paying bills through August or September. However, it said that if borrowing needs exceed its projections, the U.S. could run out of cash by late May or sometime in June.“The projected exhaustion date is uncertain because the timing and amount of revenue collections and outlays over the intervening months could differ from C.B.O.’s projections,” the budget office said in a report.The so-called X-date is the moment when the United States is unable to pay its bills, including interest payments to investors who hold government debt. Failure to meet those obligations could result in the United States defaulting on its debt. The U.S. has never defaulted on its debt, which is considered one of the safest investments in the world, and brinkmanship over missed payments could be economically damaging.The national debt is now approaching $37 trillion. Lawmakers agreed in June 2023 to suspend the $31.4 trillion debt limit until Jan. 1, 2025.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Signs Spending Bill to Fund Government

      by

      President Trump on Saturday signed the government funding bill passed by the Senate on Friday. The bill was passed just hours before a midnight deadline to avoid a lapse in funding, which would have shut down the government.The signing of the bill ended a week of drama on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday, the House passed the legislation, which funds the government through Sept. 30, in a mostly party-line vote that reflected how Republican fiscal hawks have swallowed their concerns about spending in deference to Mr. Trump. The vote was 217 to 213, with only one Republican, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voting against the legislation. One Democrat, Representative Jared Golden of Maine, voted yes.That sent the measure to the Senate, which spent the rest of the week deliberating whether to accept the Republican bill from the House, or send it back and shut down the government at 12:01 a.m. Saturday.The key vote came on Friday afternoon, after days of Democratic agonizing that divided the party. That procedural vote, which ended debate and moved the bill to a final vote, needed the support of some Democrats. Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, and nine other members of his caucus supplied the votes needed to effectively thwart a filibuster by their own party and prevent a shutdown.The final vote to pass the spending measure and send it to Mr. Trump to sign was 54 to 46, nearly along party lines.Carl Hulse More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Democratic Divide: Would a Shutdown Have Helped or Hurt Trump?

      by

      When Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, announced that he would vote with Republicans to clear the way for passage of a stopgap spending bill, he argued that a government shutdown would further empower President Trump and Elon Musk to defund government programs and shrink federal agencies.“Under a shutdown, the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise that they would ever be rehired,” Mr. Schumer said on Thursday.But many Democrats, who were stunned and enraged by Mr. Schumer’s stance, argued that it was in fact the spending extension that would clear the way for Mr. Trump’s executive orders and Mr. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to continue to reshape the government, running roughshod over Congress in the process.Behind the political divide over how best to push back against Mr. Trump was a practical question: Does the White House have more power or less when the government shuts down?It’s a complicated subject. Here’s what to know:What happens in a government shutdown?When the government shuts down, agencies continue essential work, but federal employees and contractors are not paid. Many employees are furloughed until Congress acts to extend new funding.Federal agencies typically make contingency plans that lay out who should keep working and what programs need to operate during a shutdown. But spending experts said the decisions about what is deemed “necessary” or “essential” ultimately rest with the White House Office of Management and Budget, currently run by Russell T. Vought.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More