I’m old enough to remember when Republican President Ronald Reagan, during his 1988 state of the union address, dropped a heavy stack of papers, comprising that year’s budgeting megabill, next to the podium. He declared that “Congress shouldn’t send another one,” otherwise he would not sign it.
He got a rare bipartisan standing ovation for that.
Many of you are old enough to remember when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of the Affordable Care Act, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Her next sentence clarified that she meant the bill could be understood best “away from the fog of the controversy." But that first sentence soon became a political rallying cry for some Republicans upset with the passage of a bill so large no one could properly digest it.
Times change. This is a much more hyper-partisan period in history. It’s apparently so partisan that party faithful don’t get the irony.
He got a rare bipartisan standing ovation for that.
Many of you are old enough to remember when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of the Affordable Care Act, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Her next sentence clarified that she meant the bill could be understood best “away from the fog of the controversy." But that first sentence soon became a political rallying cry for some Republicans upset with the passage of a bill so large no one could properly digest it.
Times change. This is a much more hyper-partisan period in history. It’s apparently so partisan that party faithful don’t get the irony.
Today’s proposed budget — another megabill totalling more than 1,000 pages — is being pushed by a Republican president. He apparently doesn’t mind how big and heavy it is.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky posted a plaintive plea on X last week before the House voted: “Shouldn’t we take more than a few hours to read a bill this big and this consequential?”
Was he implying we may have to pass it to see what’s in it?
So far, we know it makes changes to Medicaid, extends the tax cuts enacted during the first Trump term, removes some tax credits for clean energy, and increases spending for border security. A measure to eliminate taxes on tips passed the Senate separately on a unanimous vote and is now awaiting action in the House.
We also know that, taken together, these would add $3.8 trillion over 10 years to the rapidly growing national debt, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
A lot of tips probably already don’t get reported as income, but the Peter G. Peterson Foundation estimates the no-tax bill on tips would cost $110 billion over 10 years, even though it’s limited to people earning less than $160,000. That may not be much in a Washington where deficits run in the trillions, but it’s still moving in the wrong direction.
But the bill doesn’t stop there. It would bar states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Utah has been a leader in passing laws that protect its people from malicious AI, including its use for mental health services.
But the budget bill tells states to repeal all such laws.
It also would curtail the federal courts’ power to hold government personnel in contempt for disobeying judicial orders — an ominous provision given the number of Trump actions courts have found to be illegal.
It’s a rule Republicans may quickly regret the next time a Democrat takes control of the White House.
The ‘80s are long gone. We no longer have Reagan and his eye-catching stack of budget bills. Everything’s electronic these days, anyway.
But we do have Elon Musk, the DOGE slasher, who told CBS News he doesn’t like what he’s seeing.
"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," he said, adding this interesting observation: "I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both.”
Strip away the PR and budgets are statements about priorities. That’s true whether it’s your household budget or that of a stamp-collecting club. By that measure, this bill speaks loudly and with increasing clarity as it awaits Senate action.
But what its size and breadth say about a representative government’s deliberative process, and what its totality says about overspending, are causes for concern. So is its implied message about political parties and the fluidity of principles. I’m guessing Mr. Reagan would not be amused.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky posted a plaintive plea on X last week before the House voted: “Shouldn’t we take more than a few hours to read a bill this big and this consequential?”
Was he implying we may have to pass it to see what’s in it?
So far, we know it makes changes to Medicaid, extends the tax cuts enacted during the first Trump term, removes some tax credits for clean energy, and increases spending for border security. A measure to eliminate taxes on tips passed the Senate separately on a unanimous vote and is now awaiting action in the House.
We also know that, taken together, these would add $3.8 trillion over 10 years to the rapidly growing national debt, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
A lot of tips probably already don’t get reported as income, but the Peter G. Peterson Foundation estimates the no-tax bill on tips would cost $110 billion over 10 years, even though it’s limited to people earning less than $160,000. That may not be much in a Washington where deficits run in the trillions, but it’s still moving in the wrong direction.
But the bill doesn’t stop there. It would bar states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Utah has been a leader in passing laws that protect its people from malicious AI, including its use for mental health services.
But the budget bill tells states to repeal all such laws.
It also would curtail the federal courts’ power to hold government personnel in contempt for disobeying judicial orders — an ominous provision given the number of Trump actions courts have found to be illegal.
It’s a rule Republicans may quickly regret the next time a Democrat takes control of the White House.
The ‘80s are long gone. We no longer have Reagan and his eye-catching stack of budget bills. Everything’s electronic these days, anyway.
But we do have Elon Musk, the DOGE slasher, who told CBS News he doesn’t like what he’s seeing.
"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," he said, adding this interesting observation: "I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both.”
Strip away the PR and budgets are statements about priorities. That’s true whether it’s your household budget or that of a stamp-collecting club. By that measure, this bill speaks loudly and with increasing clarity as it awaits Senate action.
But what its size and breadth say about a representative government’s deliberative process, and what its totality says about overspending, are causes for concern. So is its implied message about political parties and the fluidity of principles. I’m guessing Mr. Reagan would not be amused.
RSS Feed
