Trump could be setting himself up for a ‘powerful’ early failure
- By cigaretteman
- Off Topic
- 3 Replies
President-elect Donald Trump has never been terribly concerned with the legitimate obstacles in front of him or the finer points of legislating. And getting him to mind these hurdles is only likely to get harder now that he’ll be term-limited and will have more loyalists around him — people who are less likely to question and try to check his impulses.
Get the latest election news and results
Already, Trump could be setting himself and his party up for some heartache by trying to go big once he enters the White House.
Trump has in recent days come out in favor of combining many of his biggest priorities in one big reconciliation bill — a “beautiful” bill in the words of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), and a “powerful” bill in Trump’s own words. That bill would allow the GOP, in theory, to make sweeping changes to fiscal policy with only 50 votes in the Senate, under special rules for legislation that impacts the economy (there are ostensibly some limits on what can go in it).
Trump wants such a single bill to include a multitude of items: border security, energy, extending his tax cuts from his first term, eliminating taxes on tips and possibly taking the debt ceiling off the table.
🏛️
Follow Politics
The idea is to do all of these things under the reconciliation process. Because it only requires half of the Senate, reconciliation bills are not subject to a Democratic filibuster. Some in his party, especially in the Senate, have proposed splitting up some of Trump’s aims into two reconciliation bills. Trump says he likes the single-bill idea because it’s “cleaner” and “nicer.”
The problem is that history suggests the GOP could struggle to pass any of these items on their own; packaging them together could give plenty in their party reason to view the final product as not nice enough, because of how much it spends or because there will be something they abhor. And procedural hurdles loom that could pit Trump against leaders of his party.
First, the lay of the land and some relevant history.
The margins for the GOP in the House are incredibly tight. As things stand, they can lose only one GOP vote if all Democrats are voting in opposition. (The GOP’s majority should be even smaller for a period of time early in this Congress, given that Trump has plucked two House members for Cabinet-level roles and those seats would be vacant. But those vacancies could be filled before the vote, which Johnson has pegged for April.)
In other words, the party needs near-unanimity in the House.
It’s come up short of unanimity in each of these areas in recent years.
The House GOP’s 2023 border bill initially lost the votes of two GOP House members: now-former representative John Duarte (R-California) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky). Duarte worried about the impact on food production in his district. Massie, a libertarian-minded Republican, didn’t like that the bill included E-Verify, a federal government program to determine whether someone is authorized to work. (That last one was a sticking point for other members who nonetheless wound up supporting the bill.)
House Republicans also passed an energy bill in 2023 that lost the support of one of its members.
And Trump’s tax cuts lost the votes of a dozen House Republicans. They predominantly came from the Northeast and California and didn’t like how the bill curtailed the state and local tax deduction, also known as SALT.
That’s a lot to get consensus on its own. And throwing in eliminating taxes on tips and nixing the debt ceiling could make it significantly more difficult.
The idea of eliminating taxes on tips is a politically popular idea, which was ultimately embraced by Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 campaign. But while it was a solid, populist campaign play in the abstract, there will be significant concerns about just how practical it is and whether it would even wind up benefiting low-income workers. It could also cost the government an estimated $10 billion to $15 billion per year in revenue.
Tossing in raising or eliminating the debt ceiling on top of it could make things considerably more difficult. Johnson told Fox News on Sunday that this will “have to” be part of the big bill. But piling a potentially costly border crackdown onto eliminating taxes on tips means this package would be costly. And certain fiscally conservative members of Congress have balked at raising the debt ceiling without significant spending cuts; eliminating it is probably a complete nonstarter.
Trump has offered a plan to pay for all of it.
“IT WILL ALL BE MADE UP WITH TARIFFS, AND MUCH MORE, FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE U.S. FOR YEARS,” Trump wrote on social media.
But the shape of those tariffs is to be determined, with conflicting signals about how far they’ll go and how much revenue they might generate. There are indications that Trump is interested in wielding them as negotiating ploys with other countries and might not actually institute the large, universal tariffs he proposed on the campaign trail. (The Post’s Jeff Stein reported Monday that Trump’s team is looking at focusing on certain sectors rather than actual universal tariffs. Trump called the report false but didn’t elaborate.)
Regardless of what happens, the amount of revenue the tariffs would generate would be uncertain, posing a dilemma for budget-conscious Republicans who might not like the tariffs in the first place and who worry about whether to trust that Trump won’t just balloon the national debt (again).
And then there’s what could happen in the Senate. The reconciliation process doesn’t provide carte blanche to include whatever you want in a bill; it is limited to spending, revenue and the debt limit, and it can’t include policy changes.
That raises the possibility that the Senate parliamentarian could rule that certain aspects of the big, “powerful” bill, particularly on border security and taxes, don’t meet the requirements. And Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) signaled this week that Senate Republicans wouldn’t seek to override those rulings, because it would be akin to abolishing the filibuster.
It’s not difficult to see significant pieces of the package getting adverse rulings from the parliamentarian, and Trump — who has shown little regard for institutionalism and once called for getting rid of the filibuster — pushing for the Senate to do what Thune doesn’t want to do.
In sum: Pitfalls abound. And having someone in Trump who doesn’t have much regard for them leading such a huge, all-encompassing effort would not seem an ideal circumstance for Republicans who want to get big things done with their newfound control of Washington.
Get the latest election news and resultsAlready, Trump could be setting himself and his party up for some heartache by trying to go big once he enters the White House.
Trump has in recent days come out in favor of combining many of his biggest priorities in one big reconciliation bill — a “beautiful” bill in the words of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), and a “powerful” bill in Trump’s own words. That bill would allow the GOP, in theory, to make sweeping changes to fiscal policy with only 50 votes in the Senate, under special rules for legislation that impacts the economy (there are ostensibly some limits on what can go in it).
Trump wants such a single bill to include a multitude of items: border security, energy, extending his tax cuts from his first term, eliminating taxes on tips and possibly taking the debt ceiling off the table.
🏛️
Follow Politics
The idea is to do all of these things under the reconciliation process. Because it only requires half of the Senate, reconciliation bills are not subject to a Democratic filibuster. Some in his party, especially in the Senate, have proposed splitting up some of Trump’s aims into two reconciliation bills. Trump says he likes the single-bill idea because it’s “cleaner” and “nicer.”
The problem is that history suggests the GOP could struggle to pass any of these items on their own; packaging them together could give plenty in their party reason to view the final product as not nice enough, because of how much it spends or because there will be something they abhor. And procedural hurdles loom that could pit Trump against leaders of his party.
First, the lay of the land and some relevant history.
The margins for the GOP in the House are incredibly tight. As things stand, they can lose only one GOP vote if all Democrats are voting in opposition. (The GOP’s majority should be even smaller for a period of time early in this Congress, given that Trump has plucked two House members for Cabinet-level roles and those seats would be vacant. But those vacancies could be filled before the vote, which Johnson has pegged for April.)
In other words, the party needs near-unanimity in the House.
It’s come up short of unanimity in each of these areas in recent years.
The House GOP’s 2023 border bill initially lost the votes of two GOP House members: now-former representative John Duarte (R-California) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky). Duarte worried about the impact on food production in his district. Massie, a libertarian-minded Republican, didn’t like that the bill included E-Verify, a federal government program to determine whether someone is authorized to work. (That last one was a sticking point for other members who nonetheless wound up supporting the bill.)
House Republicans also passed an energy bill in 2023 that lost the support of one of its members.
And Trump’s tax cuts lost the votes of a dozen House Republicans. They predominantly came from the Northeast and California and didn’t like how the bill curtailed the state and local tax deduction, also known as SALT.
That’s a lot to get consensus on its own. And throwing in eliminating taxes on tips and nixing the debt ceiling could make it significantly more difficult.
The idea of eliminating taxes on tips is a politically popular idea, which was ultimately embraced by Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 campaign. But while it was a solid, populist campaign play in the abstract, there will be significant concerns about just how practical it is and whether it would even wind up benefiting low-income workers. It could also cost the government an estimated $10 billion to $15 billion per year in revenue.
Tossing in raising or eliminating the debt ceiling on top of it could make things considerably more difficult. Johnson told Fox News on Sunday that this will “have to” be part of the big bill. But piling a potentially costly border crackdown onto eliminating taxes on tips means this package would be costly. And certain fiscally conservative members of Congress have balked at raising the debt ceiling without significant spending cuts; eliminating it is probably a complete nonstarter.
Trump has offered a plan to pay for all of it.
“IT WILL ALL BE MADE UP WITH TARIFFS, AND MUCH MORE, FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE U.S. FOR YEARS,” Trump wrote on social media.
But the shape of those tariffs is to be determined, with conflicting signals about how far they’ll go and how much revenue they might generate. There are indications that Trump is interested in wielding them as negotiating ploys with other countries and might not actually institute the large, universal tariffs he proposed on the campaign trail. (The Post’s Jeff Stein reported Monday that Trump’s team is looking at focusing on certain sectors rather than actual universal tariffs. Trump called the report false but didn’t elaborate.)
Regardless of what happens, the amount of revenue the tariffs would generate would be uncertain, posing a dilemma for budget-conscious Republicans who might not like the tariffs in the first place and who worry about whether to trust that Trump won’t just balloon the national debt (again).
And then there’s what could happen in the Senate. The reconciliation process doesn’t provide carte blanche to include whatever you want in a bill; it is limited to spending, revenue and the debt limit, and it can’t include policy changes.
That raises the possibility that the Senate parliamentarian could rule that certain aspects of the big, “powerful” bill, particularly on border security and taxes, don’t meet the requirements. And Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) signaled this week that Senate Republicans wouldn’t seek to override those rulings, because it would be akin to abolishing the filibuster.
It’s not difficult to see significant pieces of the package getting adverse rulings from the parliamentarian, and Trump — who has shown little regard for institutionalism and once called for getting rid of the filibuster — pushing for the Senate to do what Thune doesn’t want to do.
In sum: Pitfalls abound. And having someone in Trump who doesn’t have much regard for them leading such a huge, all-encompassing effort would not seem an ideal circumstance for Republicans who want to get big things done with their newfound control of Washington.
