Carl Higbie: Harsh Words For Republicans After House Budget Bill

"On Wednesday's "Carl Higbie FRONTLINE," Carl talked about the latest budget bill that Democrats voted against, broke down the lasted budget bill the House passed, and more." 

Source:Newsmax anchor Carl Higbie.

From Newsmax

This is what's actually in the House Republican budget resolution: 

"The budget resolution directs congressional committees to craft their own proposals to hit spending targets, increasing or decreasing funding by adjusting programs and policies that fall under their purview. Republicans want to cut trillions of dollars in spending to pay for trillions in tax cuts, while increasing funding in some areas.

Though Senate Republicans have pushed for two bills to address Mr. Trump's priorities, House Republicans are pursuing one major bill to address border security, defense and energy priorities, along with $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. 

Their plan calls for at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over a 10-year period and instructs a number of committees to find ways to reduce their budget impact, while increasing spending for several other issue areas. The House Ways and Means Committee is tasked with implementing the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over a decade. The resolution would also raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.

Here are the areas where spending would increase:

Up to $110 billion in additional spending for the Judiciary Committee

Up to $100 billion for the Armed Services Committee

Up to $90 billion for the Homeland Security Committee 

Here are the committees that are tasked with finding the cuts:

At least $880 billion by the Energy and Commerce Committee 

At least $330 billion by the Education and Workforce Committee 

At least $230 billion by the Agriculture Committee

At least $50 billion by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee

At least $10 billion by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

At least $1 billion by the Financial Services Committee

At least $1 billion by the Natural Resources Committee

The final product must be deficit-neutral to comply with reconciliation rules, and Republicans are relying on economic projections that show the tax cuts would spur economic growth that would increase tax revenues. Those projections have been questioned by outside experts and Democrats who describe them as overly optimistic. One analysis found that the budget proposal would allow for a deficit increase of $2.8 trillion through 2034." 

From CBS News

And I apologize to no one for not automatically taking the word of Carl Higbie or any other Newsmax host... even seriously, let alone as actually factual. He has his audience that he has to keep on board in oder to stay in business and on the air. Even if that means leaving out facts and simply lying about "no taxes on tips", or any entitlement reform even dealing with Medicaid, let alone Medicare and Social Security. 

As my colleague Erik Schneider wrote earlier today: 

"So what this means is the House didn't pass a Federal budget last night and the Senate didn't pass 1 last week. What they did instead was (if Cillizza is correct) is just pass blueprints and lay out their goals for what they want to pass and cut in the Federal budget this year in Congress. So if that's true, then this is where this discussion could be a lot of fun... or at least interesting... at the very least, it no longer sounds like a Senate filibuster where is senator is reading from a phonebook. (Sorry for the Congressional joke) 

So what this means is that House Republicans as of right now, can't even agree with themselves on what to cut from the Federal budget and how much, in order to pass the President's agenda as it relates to military spending, border security, extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, etc...

My point here is, for Congress to pass legislation through reconciliation, the legislation has to be related to the Federal budget, they have to pass a budget first, or at least a budget blueprint, and the legislation has to either be paid for, (meaning it doesn't add to the deficit) or it has to have sunset provisions in it. If they want their legislation to be permanent, (meaning Congress would have to repeal the legislation later on for it to go away) the legislation has to be paid for in the bill that it passed. 

So to go to 1 of the points that Chris Cillizza is making here: the Republican Congress is going to either have to pay for the President's agenda, either though budget cuts, or revenue raisers (like new taxes or fees) or there's going to have to be a sunset provision in their reconciliation process. Meaning Congress and the President would have to agree to extend the law later on, or let it expire later on. 

And right now, the Republican House is 880 billion dollars short in paying for their legislation. That's a huge number. That's basically the entire military budget right now. Which is why House Republicans have been looking at Medicaid for their cuts in the last 2 weeks. And their members are finding out right now that is very unpopular and would be very difficult to vote for politically. Which is probably why the House didn't actually pass a Federal budget plan last night. Just a blueprint for one." 

From The New Democrat

And to Carl Higbie's point about "tax cuts automatically paying for themselves": if that were true (and fish could fly and dogs said meow) then how come every time the Republican Party has passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts, they've always had sunset provisions in them? Meaning they expire lets's say 5-10 years later and have to be extended by Congress to stay law. The answer because the Congressional Budget Office (which is Republican controlled) doesn't agree with that line of thinking. ("Thinking" might be too generous of a word here) 

So the CBO tells the House and Senate that they either have to pay for their tax cuts through budget cuts, or raise new revenue up front, or they have to have sunset previsions in them to be able to pass through reconciliation and not be subjected to the 60 vote rule in the Senate. 

I'm all in favor of border security and for a stronger defense in America... depending on how the legislation is structured. But when you campaign on the national debt and Federal deficit being too high, wouldn't you want to do something about those issues once you are in office and have the power to fix those problems? Instead of trying to figure out how you get around your own budget rules and trying to pass your legislation onto the national debt card, through reconciliation? 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.