Trump Endorses House GOP’s Budget Reconciliation Bill
“We need both Chambers to pass the House Budget to ‘kickstart’ the Reconciliation process, and move all of our priorities to the concept of, ‘ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.'”
President Donald Trump voiced his support for the House of Representatives GOP budget reconciliation plan on TruthSocial:
The House and Senate are doing a SPECTACULAR job of working together as one unified, and unbeatable, TEAM, however, unlike the Lindsey Graham version of the very important Legislation currently being discussed, the House Resolution implements my FULL America First Agenda, EVERYTHING, not just parts of it! We need both Chambers to pass the House Budget to “kickstart” the Reconciliation process, and move all of our priorities to the concept of, “ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.” It will, without question, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Fox News confirmed the House GOP will bring it to the floor next week.
Fox confirms. House intends to bring up its budget plan on the floor next week
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) February 19, 2025
The 167 page bill promises to pop bloated bureaucracy, reverse former President Joe Biden’s spending spree, rein in runaway mandatory spending, cut waste & fraud in entitlement programs, and reignite growth and prosperity.
Some points from The Hill:
- $1.5 trillion floor for spending cuts across committees with a target of $2 trillion
- $4.5 trillion cap on the deficit impact of the Republicans’ plan to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts
- $300 billion in additional spending for the border and defense
- increases the debt limit by $4 trillion
Senate Majority Leader John Thune claimed the House GOP needed to increase spending “to accommodate President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax-cut agenda.”
Thune planned to bring the Senate bill to the floor. Don’t know if he will still do that.
The Senate GOP wanted to “pass a border, energy and defense bill and then come back later this year and try to pass a separate bill on tax cuts.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
We need zero based budgeting
Now, what needs to be done is to form a body (commission, board, or whatever) to assess the constitutionality of each and every single government agency, bureau, board, commission, or whatever. If they do not pass constitutional muster, the responsibilities of each are passed to the states, or the entire thing just goes away.
I said when DOGE started that I wanted Trump to form a team of the most strict “originalist” and “textualist” Constitutional scholars ever seen, and go through the entire Executive branch. They should provide a list of three categories: The Founders would have shot you in the face; the Founders would have argued over this one, and here’s what the most American-, federalist-, and freedom-oriented said; and Yes, the Founders were OK with this one, but you probably should cut out a bunch of the bits and parts.
What’s the disagreement to get a downvote? Tell me what part of that is worth downvoting, please. I’d like to know. (It’s probably our drive-by downvoter, but it’s still worth asking.)
This is one of the things I do NOT support Trump’s position.
We need lots of little appropriations bills. And not so many, really, since we should slash vast numbers of agencies and organizations.
Also, I NEVER trust “reconciliation.” That’s always how evil s*** gets into the budget.
Lastly, no bill should ever get a “reconciliation” vote under that grotesque rule. It should require debate on everything that is different from the previously passed bill, and a by-name vote on the bill in both houses.
Make them all accountable for their own votes.
What is needed is specific funding for specific “things”. What seems to be the norm is a spending bill for a specific thing, like the border, which is then padded out with lots of shit unrelated to the border.
Something like a proposed bill to help school aged children learn the core subjects being taught, translated to illegal alien resettlement bill in communities with smaller schools.
I see this abomination as a bill written without specific requirements guiding implementation.
What is desperately needed = oodles and oodles of bills REPEALING the statutes by which these 000s of federal agencies had been created over decades.
REPEAL
REPEAL
REPEAL
Spending is automatically reduced. Cutting the behemoth down is Job #1.
The Democrats, even the more mild-mannered ones from the 1930s, want unlimited government which is the only known alternative to limited government which the document aimed to do.
Although I agree with you on principle, politics is the art of the possible. Trump doesn’t have sufficient votes in the Congress to pass non-recon funding bills at this late date for this year.
What he does have is a somewhat “clean” bill, only 160 pages. In contrast according to The Hill the 1924 version had 1,600 pages of pure pork and congressional perk add-ins.
I thought that might be the case, but interestingly it took me 15 minutes of trying different phrasing with google to get a comparison before I decided google was farking with me and switched to a bing search. Got it on the first try. Gee, it’s almost as if google has search results it considers too dangerous to let us access……
Oops, 2024, not 1924.
“Mister we could use a man Like Herbert Hoover again”
LOL – someone said they wrote that on a check right after the first of the year.
And, while I agree on the “art of the possible” thing, it would be nice to actually NOT be saying that sort of thing, and instead pushing for them to do their jobs and pass readable bills.
I’ve noticed more and more recently Google just absolutely evading telling me what it knows I want to know. When it does, DuckDuckGo is useless, performing the same evasions, most probably because they crib off Google’s own original work. Increasingly, I have had to resort to Russia’s Yandex — it may be a lying Putin stooge, but still it honors every search term you specify rather than ignoring selected ones in order to bias your results.
This sort of misbehavior is exemplified by the Amazon search facility, which — even if it has a perfect match for exactly what you just typed in — will still give you a whole page full of poorer matches before giving you what it is you wanted to buy, To me, this is the major cyber-threat to our sanity, not AI. Of course, they will add AI to it to make it worse.
“…it took me 15 minutes of trying different phrasing with google to get a comparison …”
Forget Google, and probably Bing (I haven’t used it much). Go straight to Grok and/or Perplexity.com!
I keep throwing questions at this pair where I think: “You won’t be able to answer this.”; and it’s rare that I don’t get close. Grock sat there once with a blank look on it’s face; but at least it didn’t feed me pages and pages of rubbish!
I agree. However, progress is progress.
Quite a change from 2016-2017, when Congress was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, and yet couldn’t lift a damn finger to do anything that was either wanted by Trump or addressed their own campaign promises.
I wonder if the difference between now and then is because we have many more MAGA-committed congressmen than back then, or whether they’re mostly the same old slobs (which I suspect) with a brand new fear in them.
I think the major difference is now they would be opposing not just one billionaire but 2, the second one being arguably the richest man on the planet. Elon could easily finance an alternate candidate for each coming Republican congressional primary to the max ($10k I think). But the bigger stick is he could buy generic opposition ads holding each current office holder accountable for not supporting popular common sense MAGA portions. No candidate wants to be on tv ads being shown to be in favor of fraud and waste. Even if they are. Especially if they are.
We’re looking at March to.get it done, so it’s not really practical on this one. I look at the initial efforts of DOGE and this budget as battlefield preparation for the larger fight to come.
We can’t get political support broad enough to make real program changes to reduce spending in the more costly items until we ID and eliminate the low hanging fruit. Take SSA as one example. ID the fraud and overpayments and then see what that does on overall program solvency. Then any changes to SSI retirement have more support. Some at the edge changes that don’t impact individual benefits are increasing age to 70 for Gen X and younger, phase in requiring 25 years of work with Gen X needing 15, eliminating the ‘Spousal Benefit’ for everyone not drawing it now. One change for everyone is to increase the divisor of work years from 35 to 52 to match Gen X age 70 ret. Use 1965 birth year as full 52 year requirement with one work less year back to 1948. So of born in ’47 you need 35 work years, if ’48 then 36 work years all the way to ’65 where you need 52 work years to avoid any ‘zero earnings’ years in work history.
I upvoted replies to me because they are intelligent responses to my position and we can go back and forth reasonably. I do understand what you’re saying. I am not sure I agree with how it’s going to work out.
@CommoChief, I’d agree with your plan on SS if it meant that at some point we handed everyone a wad of cash and said “Now go get your own retirement fund.” Because the idea that our national government has to take care of us in infirmity or old age is one of the worst un-constitutional things our gov’t has ever done.
There ain’t any pool of cash to hand over. It’s a ponzi scheme. The only route is reform where every generational cohort takes a hit. So far the Boomers and older don’t seem interested in sharing the pain. The other path is to accept that in a decade there WILL be a roughly 25% cut to benefits paid out to retirees. As a.Gen X member I’ve been paying current SSI/Medicare tax rates since I was 16 years old and long ago in College figured out my generation would get hosed on getting the SSI benefits as advertised. So we’re already paying more and expecting less return than every older generation and WON’T accept more pain unless the Boomers and Silent Gen accept proportional levels of pain as well.
Like it or not the system exists. We had an opportunity to make significant reforms a couple decades ago to basically split the program off for those on SSI and close to retirement 55+ to keep it while allowing younger folks out from under it……but the Boomers and Silent Gen went berserk and scuttled that idea. ‘Grandma being pushed off the cliff’. Well in a decade she won’t get pushed off a cliff but she will get a benefit reduction of about 25% if the Boomers and Silent Gen don’t stop being selfishly intransigent about accepting their proportional share of pain.
GWB I agree that single item budget appropriations are the goal. However, in the short term there is no way that most or probably any real budget like that would get 60 votes in the Senate.
Trump is taking the quick win here needed only 51 votes in the Senate, which combined with his executive actions are almost certain to drastically cut spending, curtail the power of the administrative state and launch an economic boom.
If that type of progress is made, then Senate elections in ’26 and ’28 combined with public approval may well lead to rational budgets in the next decade.
To be honest, I am worried, I am afraid of being Charlie Brown while Lucy holds the football.
I mean, it’s ALWAYS
“Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus”
(“the mountains are in labour, they will bear a ridiculous mouse”).
Can the Congress actually steel their courage to the sticking point?
I am so afraid they can’t; you can’t change 100 years of habit in three weeks, can you? Can THEY?
Packing the budget with Republican pork is almost as bad as packing it with Democrat pork
I have hope that this will come to pass thanks to the Rs holding both chambers of Congress, but we all know that isn’t going to last.
We need to Make Impoundment Great Again.