Chris Cillizza: The Republican Budget Bill is a LOT Less Than Meets The Eye

"Chris Cillizza discusses the House Republican budget bill, highlighting that its promises may not align with its actual provisions. The bill proposes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $1.5 trillion in spending reductions over the next decade. However, it lacks specific details on which programs will face cuts, leading to uncertainty about its true impact. Cillizza points out that while the bill aims to advance President Donald Trump's legislative agenda, it has faced opposition within the GOP, with some members expressing concerns over potential deep cuts to Medicaid and other social programs. This internal division suggests that the bill's advertised benefits may not fully materialize, as significant negotiations and revisions are likely needed to secure broader support." 

Source:Chris Cillizza talking about Speaker of the House Mike Johnson's (MAGA, Louisiana) budget blueprint.

From Chris Cillizza

I posted a question on Threads about this to Chris Cillizza: 

I have a question. If Congress (House & Senate) were to agree to the House's resolution, (big if) would they then have to come up with the 880 billion dollars in cuts, to pass the President's agenda through reconciliation?

From my Threads page. 

I think Chris Cillizza is pretty smart when it comes to Washington politics. I think his career at The Washington Post and CNN back that up. So let's say he's completely right about what he's saying here. (For the sake of discussion, at least) 

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 a 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. 

If you have are having trouble sleeping right now: here's a look at the Congressional reconciliation process: 

Named for Senator Robert Byrd, the Byrd rule (Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act) was first adopted in the mid-1980s to limit extraneous provisions from inclusion in reconciliation bills. Because reconciliation bills are considered using expedited procedures in the Senate, the Byrd rule is aimed at preventing the use of reconciliation to move a legislative agenda unrelated to spending or taxes, and to some extent it limits Congress’ ability to use reconciliation to increase deficits – at least over the long-term. The Byrd rule prohibits the inclusion of “extraneous” measures in reconciliation, defining “extraneous” as follows:

measures with no budgetary effect (i.e., no change in outlays or revenues);

measures that worsen the deficit when a committee has not achieved its reconciliation target;

measures outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision;

measures that produce a budgetary effect that is merely incidental to the non- budgetary policy change;

measures that increase deficits for any fiscal year outside the reconciliation window; and 

measures that recommend changes in Social Security.

From the House Budget Democrats

In the 117th Congress, (with feels like 4 years ago) House and Senate Democrats passed a stimulus bill through reconciliation in 2021. The bill wasn't paid for, but it passed reconciliation rules because it had a sunset provision in it. Meaning the provisions in the bill would expire 2 years later. 

A year later, Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, to try to deal with rising inflation. (In case anyone was wondering) All the provisions were paid for. 

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. 

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.