BREAKING: House Passes Trump-GOP Budget

PJ Media ^ | 02/25/2025 | Paula Bolyard

[SeekAndFind]

The House floor was the scene of some drama tonight—what else is new?—as Republicans launched a last-minute push to drag a few GOP holdouts over the finish line to pass the budget resolution.

Earlier in the night, Republican leadership brought the resolution to the floor, only to pull it back before voting could be completed, reportedly because the GOP had a few more votes to whip. Once those were secured, the resolution came to the floor again.

The party-line vote was 217-213 in favor, with three House members abstaining. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) was the lone Republican holdout. He had indicated earlier in the day that he would vote no.

“If the Republican plan passes, under the rosiest assumptions, which aren't even true, we're going to add $328 billion to the deficit this year, we're going to add $295 billion to the deficit the year after that, $242 billion to the deficit after that,” Massie said. “Why would I vote for that?”

Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters he had spoken to President Trump multiple times today: "He knows exactly what we're doing and why."

According to the House Budget Committee, the resolution would: 

• Provide tax relief for working families and small businesses; 
• Reverse the Biden-Harris administration’s whole of government assault on domestic energy;
• Rein in reckless spending that lit the fuse on inflation; 
• Give the Trump-Vance administration the critical resources they need to secure our border and strengthen our national security.

[Kudsman]

Watch what happens as more ‘stuff’ starts getting made with more beautiful Made In Usa stickers attached.

[JayGalt]

“The truth is, the Trump tax cuts resulted in economic growth that was a full percentage point above CBO’s forecast, and federal revenues far outpaced the agency’s predictions. In fact, under Trump tax policies in 2022, tax revenues reached a record high of nearly $5 trillion, and revenues averaged $205 billion above CBO predictions for the four years following implementation of the law.”

“Beyond what the Trump tax cuts did for economic growth and federal revenues, it provided major benefits to working families. The officially reported poverty level fell to its lowest rate in 50 years and unemployment rates for minorities and those without a college degree hit all-time lows. Real median household income rose by $5,000, and wages went up by nearly 5 percent. Americans earning under $100,000 saw an average tax cut of 16 percent. And while the tax burden on low-income families went down, the top one percent saw their share of federal taxes go up.”

https://budget.house.gov/press-release/despite-cbos-predictions-trump-tax-cuts-were-a-boon-for-americas-economy-and-working-families

[Buttons12]

Things certainly are looking up. Now if we can just delouse ourselves of left-wing judges...

[icclearly]

There is no solution to the problem. They aren’t even papering it over. They are just shrugging at this point and letting whatever is going to happen, happen.

It's called kicking the proverbial can right on down that dirt road!

Yes, there is a solution. Stop the endless trillion-dollar failed wars, cut the waste (off to a good start w/Elon) and stop spending a trillion dollars a year on a bloated military.

We're hurling toward a disaster.

It don't take no genius to see that. The rest of the world sees this, too. And they are slowly moving away from our dollar and our economy.

When will it all come crashing down? Give it another two or three years. Then, BOOM, CRASH, BOOM.

[nathanbedford]

I quite agree, it is essential that the house and Senate be held in 2026. The question is how is that accomplished: by cruising down the middle Road or better accomplished by driving to the right, that is, relentlessly advancing the Trump program – or, as you suggest in a different context, going to the people to make the case that painful cuts are necessary.

I think most people on these threads will say that the true path is to pursue common sense fiscal policy upon which Trump campaigned and is currently governing.

If we assume that Trump is going to accomplish that by cutting taxes I submit that cutting taxes on Social Security, tips and over time will not do the trick. Cutting taxes on tips was admittedly a campaign gesture made by Trump in response to a suggestion. But Social Security, tips and over time exemptions from taxes in my judgment will not be enough to energize the economy if one seeks to energize the economy enough to reduce the deficit or to stimulate the economy. To the contrary, they will short-term increase the deficit. Otherwise, the bill only prevents the elimination of Trump's original tax cuts from the last administration. So no stimulus there. Pray that The Musk effect extends to the midterms.

We Republicans run the risk of pretending to govern as we campaigned but actually governing by the same old same old. Elon Musk Is doing a lot of downfield blocking that provides cover for this bill that just slipped through the House.

Similarly, cutting taxes on Social Security, tips and over time might be gestures calculated to fend off Democrat allegations that the continuation of the Trump tax cuts from his previous administration benefits the rich. These cuts are "populist" in character and could serve as a buffer to Democrat complaints.

Trump has made a calculated campaign decision as a candidate: he would run as an optimist as far as the economy was concerned, that he could fix it, that he would do it by cutting taxes, increasing energy etc. All his remedies were painless.

He made a conscious decision not to go to the country and explicitly worn them that the deficit and debt were at a crisis point that require painful cuts. Perhaps he believes that we can grow our way out of this peril, that is certainly how he sells his program. God, I pray that he is right.

To this date the president has declined to go to the people with a warning of dire consequences if painful cuts are not made. He might be forced to that position by events, particularly events at the bond auction window if the bond vigilantes decline to roll over $10 trillion our $36 trillion national debt.

You suggested that he go from state to state to make an appeal to the people as only the occupant of the bully pulpit can do. This is what I've been musing about, whether he should do that now or wait until he might be forced to do so later.

Whenever he goes to the people, if he does, I don't think the Article V approach is the correct one, as much as I favor the Article V campaign in other contexts and have done so for many years, because of the daunting math that securing only 13 different states legislatures in opposition defeats such an amendment. It is actually easier to get reform economic policy through the federal legislature by the reconciliation process.

[Nateman]

There are two Convention of States (COS) attempts in play. The Balanced Budget Amendment which has gone morbid after the Graham-Rudman fake fix sunk that attempt and the more ambitious current attempt.

Historically the Federal Debt has been zero only once in American history. Milton Friedman pointed out it is a systemic problem. Cutting spending only gets you defeated in Congress. Something to change that is needed and he argued that a Balanced Budget Amendment was the cure.

Regardless of where a proposed Amendment comes from the end game is still the same. The States themselves must ratify it. At least in the Convention Of States version you already had 2/3's in favor , you just have to squeeze out the rest. If nothing else having an actual COS means most of the fear factor goes away. It is the fear factor which has kept this option dormant for centuries . Making the COS option more viable for future generations is itself something worth pursuing even if it fails to add any amendments.

[Gaffer]

I can’t see how that makes that much of a difference when 65% of the taxes paid in this country comes from the top 5% earners and that is about $1.4 Trillion. Next are the 1% who pay about 45%..... The top 50% pay 97.75 of the tax revenue.

I think that with some actual DOGE efficiency savings, foregoing loss on tips and overtime is worth it for those in the lower income segments and may put more money back into the economy.

If you cut spending you can cut taxes, IMO.

[9YearLurker]

You’re looking at it backwards—from the perspective of government revenue.

I’m looking at it on the business level. Obviously, making tips tax-free is good for Trump’s family businesses, of course, because it means that you need to pay less for tipped employees.

By the same principle, other businesses that can shift a portion of their employee compensation to untaxed tips will have to pay those employees less as well.

[Gaffer]

It is not an ‘automatic’ given that because tips would not be taxed that ‘employers need to pay them less. In fact, if tips were not taxed, then employers would not have to assume those tips as income paid by them and subsequent matching FICA withholding for that part of the income would not be required, right?

[9YearLurker]

Right. But employees would be willing to work for less compared to other options because they don’t pay income tax on it. That means that as a sector tipped-employee work wages could be reduced to maintain the same level of competitiveness for workers.

[Dan in Wichita]

Massie gets his name and message mentioned near the top of the article. Attention hog.

He's nothing but a self-proclaimed "principled conservative" who is doing nothing to help America get back on the road to recovery. I hope like hell he is primaried out next year.

[Gaffer]

This ‘willing to work for less’ is all a function of the actual amount of tipping received and the resulting tax comparisons that would be made.

The more and more employers would try to divest themselves from paying hourly wages, the more and more this pushes the question over into the subcontractor 1099 side of the taxes/reporting, IMO.

To me, No Tax on tips/overtime is a win-win issue.

[9YearLurker]

Why would their not needing to pay as much translate into 1099s?

Do you understand the concept I am describing? While employees may gain at first and there will still be winners in the new system, theoretically the real ultimate gains go to the employers, not the employees.

[wiseprince]

So the spending increase decreases 3 years in a row? When was the last time that happened. Massie would lose 99 percent of what he wants if he doesn’t get everything. I’m not saying it’s that close to what he wants but he just seems to be someone who thinks theoretically and doesn’t know the art of negotiating or even how to take a massive problem and break it down to smaller problems. You cannot boil the ocean Massie. I’d like to see him be constructive in his push for a balanced budget. The fact that he couldn’t get even one other person on his side is telling.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Is this actually a budget?

Or is it just yet another continuing resolution?

[Abathar]

"Sure, they say they want to cut spending, but not when it comes to their pet programs."

Every cow is sacred if it's the one you're getting your milk from.

[cgbg]

Solid post—my only quibble is that I think the waste, fraud and abuse are much greater than we can imagine—including in the big dollar areas of “entitlement programs” and “national defense”.

If the administration does this right they will never get anywhere near any debt ceiling.

[Owen]

It is popular to say tax rate cuts drive increased revenues because they “drive the economy”.

There are rather a lot of factors that drive an economy. Isolating the economy from all variables on a graph with tax rate cuts vs tax rate increases never really happens, and there are graphs out there showing tax rates up or down over time don’t really map particularly to any significant GDP results. You can go back into history and find exceptions for everything. (because Economics is not a science)

For example, if you cut tax rates and look at GDP, and at that point in time the Arabs embargoed oil, you are not going to see a GDP increase. Ditto crash airplanes into buildings. Economics is not a science.

2001 saw a sharp tax cut. Here is historical GDP — https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ and it shows no sharp change in 2001 GDP (emerging from dotcom and 9/11). Similarly come 2008 and Lehman’s smash on GDP, there was no big tax policy change.

Point being, you only have to find one exception to a presumption to make the presumption wrong. There are two above.

Tax rates do nothing magical. They are philosophy gobbledygook.

They also affect the debt, now, because it is so very overwhelming now vs the past.

[unlearner]

“There is no solution to the problem.”

Not all solutions are desirable but, as a math equation, solutions exist.

In this case, there are two solutions:

1) Millions die (eventually), and government actions or inaction will determine which millions.

2) Grow the economy faster than the debt.

AI and robotics offer a good chance of providing the rapid growth needed.

However, America’s problems are not purely economic.

[Owen]

The compounding on the debt will overrun those effects.

You will have to carve out about 60% of the US population, with most of the net worth.

Kill them. With guns. And pass laws prohibiting inheritance. The total net worth of the population is about $39T per GPT. The upper 60% will cover the debt. Confiscate the estates and pay off the debt.

There, a solution.