Related Post
Everyone has a right to be appalled that the man who incited a riot at the Capitol is going to be certified today as the next president, exactly four years later. But the important news today out of Washington is not about the electoral count, as the country has gone temporarily back into a state of peaceful transitions of power, which are disturbingly only available when Republicans win the White House.
Instead I’m going to focus on a decision hashed out over the weekend about governing priorities. There has been a split among Republicans on how to proceed with their trifecta. The Senate, under new majority leader John Thune (R-SD), had been readying two bills. First, they would pass a border security funding measure that would also expand drilling on public lands, roll back certain climate investments from the Inflation Reduction Act (both of those would offset the border money), and possibly also increase defense spending. Then, in a second package, they would turn to the Trump tax cuts that expire at the end of the year. Both of these would be taken up under budget reconciliation (one from fiscal year 2025, the other FY2026) to avoid a Senate filibuster.
But over the weekend, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) relayed the message from Donald Trump that he wants a one-bill package, combining border, tax, and energy issues. This was the strategy House leaders, particularly Ways and Means Committee chair Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), have wanted all along. Trump himself weighed in, supporting “one powerful bill,” and Johnson has said it all could be done by April or May.
The case for the two-bill strategy was that Republicans have a lot of moving parts to work out on taxes: whether to lower corporate taxes further, how to deal with the state and local tax deduction, how to integrate Trump’s myriad of tax cut promises throughout the campaign (no taxes on tips, Social Security benefits, overtime, car loans, and so on), and how to satisfy budget hawks with offsets to reduce the cost. That will take time, and getting out with a quick win on the border, an issue of high importance to Trump, would supply the funds to engage in deportations shortly after Inauguration Day. With such a slim margin thanks to House Republicans moving into the Trump administration, doing the sure-thing border bill before special elections give Johnson a cushion was also preferable, under this theory.
The one-bill case, pushed mostly by Smith, is that he would need the border measure as a sweetener to keep Republicans on the bill; it would be hard for anyone in the caucus to oppose border security. That glue would keep together a tax bill that would be sure to include provisions that disappoint at least some members. Plus, the energy piece would deliver some of the money needed to offset the cost.
But recent legislative history suggests that the “one big bill” concept is doomed to fail. Build Back Better was intended to pass in 2021 and it didn’t get done until the following August, in much-weakened form. More recently, the Republican base rebelled and triggered a radical downsizing of the end-of-the-year funding bill, apparently on the theory that bills with too many pages are inherently suspect. Guess what, one bill covering tax, border, and energy matters is going to be pretty long!
The idea that border funding could be used to keep everyone unified only works if you’re dealing with a normal set of lawmakers who understand things like compromise and give-and-take. As I reported last week, House hard-liners have presented a list of demands for the legislative session that calls for any reconciliation bill to “reduce spending and the deficit in real terms,” forcing trillions of dollars in spending cuts into this one-bill conversation.
I don’t think the Chip Roys of the world will chill out and accept whatever half measure the GOP leadership throws at them. They conspicuously voted Johnson as Speaker conditionally, and intimated strongly they would oust him if he got out of line. “Today was ‘team player day.’ Tomorrow is secure the frigging border and cut frigging spending day,” Roy posted to X on Friday.
On the other side of the caucus, Republican frontliners have their own priorities that will be tough to square with the hard-liners. Even the optimists admit it will take several months to get close to something all factions of the caucus can agree with. And each day without a legislative accomplishment will both grate on the president and amp up the discord.
Finally, there’s the looming debt limit, where the House GOP has set a standard of $2.5 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for a $1.5 trillion debt limit increase. That was supposed to be handled in reconciliation, and it will now have to be balanced with all the other priorities. And if border spending keeps people on the bill, the debt limit will surely keep some off; there are House Republicans who have never and have no intention of ever voting for a debt limit increase, and Johnson doesn’t have those votes to spare.
All things considered, I’d say the one-bill strategy heightens the possibility of getting nothing done, or at least the possibility of scaling back ambitions and only getting a fraction passed.
Setting priorities is an important task of any new administration. Under Biden, the priority was to set no priorities, and it got the administration into trouble in the first two years, promoting a picture of indecision and dysfunction until the late-2022 breakthrough. Trump is wading right into the same shallow end of the pool.
