House Passes Budget Resolution Giving Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful’ Tax Agenda a Win
Slash more spending.
The House of Representatives passed a budget resolution, which gives President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill its first win.
However, it once again shows Republicans are not as committed to cutting spending as they claim.
Cutting taxes is great, but it has to be accompanied by spending cuts that even it out or go below. You cannot keep spending at the same limit if you’re not bringing in the same amount.
I do not believe anything these people say. From Fox News:
“I’m happy to tell you that this morning, I believe we have the votes to finally adopt the budget resolution so we can move forward on President Trump’s very important agenda for the American people,” [Speaker of the House Mike] Johnson said. “Our first big, beautiful reconciliation package here, involves a number of commitments. And one of those is that we are committed to finding at least $1.5 trillion in savings for the American people, while also preserving our essential programs.”
[Senate Majority Leader John] Thune added, “We are aligned with the House in terms of what their budget resolution outlined in terms of savings. The speaker has talked about $1.5 trillion. We have a lot of United States senators who believe in that as a minimum.”
Reps. Victoria Spartz of Indiana and Thomas Massie of Kentucky did not vote for the bill.
If you were trying to hasten financial collapse of our country and bribe voters to go along with it, the strategy wouldn’t look much different than what Congress is doing today.
The big beautiful bill cuts taxes while keeping spending on an increasingly unsustainable trajectory.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) April 10, 2025
Other holdouts eventually came on board. From Politico:
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.), who was among the House Republicans seeking assurances of spending cuts in a final package, told reporters before the vote that Trump and [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune “have been very open that they’re going to make sure that we get at least $1.5 trillion in cuts.”
“We’re getting serious about the budget and the deficit for the first time in the last couple decades,” McCormick added. “That’s a good step in the right direction.”
[Speaker of the House Mike] Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise met privately with fiscal hawks past 10 p.m. Wednesday, after the GOP leaders canceled a vote on the fiscal framework earlier in the evening. Before that, House hard-liners met privately with Thune about ensuring deeper spending cuts.
“I think at some point these guys just have to take yes for an answer,” said Thune.
Oh, Thune. That will come back and bite you bigly if you guys don’t cut at least $1.5 trillion.
I am also ticked they only want to cut $1.5 trillion. Our debt is $36 trillion.
Yeah, $1.5 trillion won’t make much of a dent.
Don’t give me, “It’s a step in the right direction!” I am tired of baby steps. Slash it.
Also, don’t tell me they’ll find other revenue-generating ways.
The government shouldn’t be spending this much. It needs to stop.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It isn’t as much cutting as we want but with our margins it is all we will get. No most Rs are not committed to cutting spending. By and large pols don’t go to DC to not spend. Cutting spending affects spending in their district(s) therefore it will be opposed. Let the cuts take place elsewhere where it should go. When spending for hardware and equipment is awarded for national projects, the spending for the many parts and components is spread out so that many Congressmen have some in their districts, by design, especially to the most vocal budgets hawks. Voters reward pols who talk the talk of necessary budget cuts but when Congressman X gets to DC he had better not cut spending at home, just elsewhere.
The budget should be slashed; trillions more cut, but it won’t be. There’s simply not a critical mass of voters demanding such action. “I’m entitled to XYZ!” is a more likely refrain. And no politician ever lost an election by promising more pork for his constituency.
The voters are the problem, so unless there’s a cataclysmic event that forces a change (economic collapse), or a parliament parlor trick to cram through a systemic change, like eliminate baseline budgeting, nothing will change.
The Trump policy has been grow our way out of the deficit and he is very explicit about it.
By the way what do you want cut?
Military budget? You don’t think we need the deterrence while tariffing China making an invasion of Taiwan more likely?
Social Security the thing Trump said “NO CUTS” to? The same social security every America pays into in expectation of getting it when they retire which Americans often start paying into at 14?
The rest of what the government does is not enough to fix deficit if you cut it to zero.
Furthermore cut it to zero you also cut Trump from being able to influence anything on the state level eliminating our ability to do good things that LI have been routinely covering.
The Army could be cut down without much impact. Going down to 7 Divisions with 4 Maneuver Brigades each and a couple of Independent Brigades..Probably cutting about 75K positions overall. Bring back the round out concept with Reserve/NG BN level formations to each AD BDE. That’s still the largest most capable force in the World.
Budget cuts…why do.we.want to maintain higher federal taxes to keep ‘leverage’ to influence State Gov’t? How about the States pay for their own programs and Massachusetts gets to be Massachusetts and Mississippi gets to be Mississippi. If the Fed.Gov’t under Trump can exert pressure then so could a Newsom Admin in the opposite direction.
End Obama care and make all employment benefits especially health care taxable to level the field between Gov’t workers, corporate workers and small business. Allow universal HSA and catastrophic care IN and the Feds/States can supply funds to give every US Citizen a checkup/physical,.basic blood work/labs, get RX written annually. Would be much cheaper than current system and remove the issue of healthcare/IN coverage for 95% of people. The last 5% not on Medicare and with significant issues beyond a catastrophic care policy can be addressed with a combo of charity hospitals, private donations and very targeted govt reimbursed care.
SSA ain’t part of the ‘budget’ at least.for now in ten years it might be….if nothing is done projected to have funds to cover only 75% of benefits. So either accept less or accept change to SSA.
Debt service is the largest ‘on budget’ expenditure, more than total DoD budget. Spending less or getting to a balanced budget means less debt to service. Sooner or later gotta spend less either b/c we want to or b/c we don’t have enough left after paying principal and interest payments on the $37 trillion and growing National Debt.
johnson is a johnson to fiscal conservatism and maga
turn social security over to the states
let the locals decide if they want this
let them collect if they do
and let the local pols be under the microscope for any fraud
It irritates the hell out of me when people count tax cuts as revenue reduction. History shows otherwise. When they reduce taxes, the increase in economic activity produces a GAIN in tax revenues.
Exactly.
For these “reconciliation” bills, its a 10 year bill.
Each time there’s been a tax cut, revenues are below the trendline for 3-4 years, and then above it for the remainder of the 10 year window. By year 7 or 8, its a break even, and in the end its a net revenue gain.
Since passing this in the House, at least the Dow has clawed back about 500-pts, after falling nearly 1500-points this morning.
If you care what the Dow is doing today or even this week then you are not an investor, you are a day trader. Go to Vegas and gamble your money. You will still go broke but you will have a good time doing it and get the all you can eat prime rib for $10
There aren’t any tax cuts. What continuing the tax status quo is called is status quo.
There are compromises in the bill, done very well by Trump because he wants his victories and temporary loss is no good reason not to take those.
Thomas Massie and other jackbleeps really have no place in congress.
I’d like a starting point of the spending before the COVID blowout. Do that and we can start slashing. The problem is people have finally realized that politicians care more about power and their bank account than the country. This is why you are seeing protests by the government money at all costs groups right now demanding the party keep going and the politicians all on board
I suspect the $1.5B is a “Scotty number” — one he already knows he could achieve despite frequent naps and a four-week vacation,,, and by not taking those he will wildly exceed his goal and look like a hero. Every manager sees these.