Tag Archive for: Tax Relief

House Passes BBB as Conservatives Win ‘Significant Commitments’ on Life, Transgenderism

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Congress has delivered President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill, but not without hours of mean-spirited Democratic delay and principled conservative negotiations that secured “major” commitments of executive action and future legislation to promote the pro-life, pro-family cause.

The House of Representatives passed President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) by a 218-214 vote on Thursday afternoon. All House Democrats voted no, joined by two Republicans: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, opposes the bill’s high deficit and spending levels, while Fitzpatrick accused the White House of “withholding critical defense material” from Ukraine.

The bill narrowly passed the Senate Tuesday, when Vice President J.D. Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) voted against the bill. It now goes to President Trump’s desk.

Democrats in both chambers tried, and failed, to prevent the bill from passing Congress by President Trump’s July 4 deadline. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) forced the Senate to read the full text of the 940-page bill aloud, which lasted nearly 16 hours. Schumer also poked at the president with a procedural motion to strip the act of its formal title, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) stalled proceedings further on Thursday morning with an eight-hour, 44-minute-long filibuster that began at 4:53 a.m. Jeffries all-but admitted he aimed to slow the bill’s passage as a procedural irritant, saying numerous times throughout his speech, “I am going to take my sweet time,” followed by a sustained standing ovation from the small gaggle of Democratic hangers-on who stayed to listen.

“It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the simple truth,” replied House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a brief rejoinder to Jeffries’s record-breaking speech. “Scripture has been cited a lot this morning — I think mostly out of context.”

“Today was about performance for some of them,” said Johnson. “Democrats deliver performances, and Republicans deliver results.”

The narrow passage reflected the concern of pro-life conservatives, who withheld their support until obtaining promises from GOP leaders to address the pro-life, pro-family provisions stripped out by the Senate.

As fiscal conservatives, border security conservatives, and national security hawks celebrated the passage of President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill, pro-life and pro-family leaders wonder aloud why their concerns got eliminated or minimized by the legislation. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the debate’s primary focus on taxes “reminds me of Bill Clinton back in his 1992 campaign: ‘It’s the economy, Stupid.’ It’s not the economy; it is the moral foundation of a nation that matters.” Some conservatives went as far as to call the watered-down Senate version of the bill “morally bankrupt.”

The revised Senate version of the bill “does not defund transgender surgery for minors. That is a moral issue. It only cuts funding for abortion services for one year, not the 10 in the House bill. That’s morally bankrupt,” Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) told “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Wednesday night.

While many pro-life advocates — including SBA Pro-Life America and Americans United for Life — called the bill’s one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood a step forward, some former insiders say the deep-pocketed abortion industry has the resources to wait it out. “While any taxpayer money diverted away from Planned Parenthood is a good thing, defunding our nation’s largest abortion provider for just one year is not the win many of us who believe abortion is abhorrent wanted it to be,” said former Planned Parenthood director and founder of And Then There Were None, Abby Johnson, in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “A year is enough time for many Planned Parenthood facilities to hold out to be re-funded. Some will close, but Planned Parenthood as an organization has millions of dollars, wealthy donors, and could support those clinics if they choose.”

Planned Parenthood, which received $792.2 million in taxpayer funding in 2024, reported total net assets of $2.52 billion. “Bottom line: it’s not enough and Republicans should permanently defund the abortion giant, not just for a paltry 12 months,” said Johnson.

“A one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood is no victory; it’s a disheartening concession,” Katie Brown Xavios, national director of American Life League, told TWS. “To receive only a token punishment for those who harm women and kill the innocent is unacceptable.”

Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, called the one-year interruption “just a very short pause on defunding” on Wednesday, noting that under the revised bill, “taxpayers will still be forced to underwrite experimental gender transition procedures.”

Family Research Council backed the House version of the bill and reserved the right to score against the Senate version. Ultimately, it reconsidered after House conservatives wrung several promises out of the Trump administration and Hill leadership.

“Last night, we facilitated negotiations and conservations on key policy issues that had been removed or modified from the House version,” announced FRC President Tony Perkins on Thursday morning. “[W]e believe we will see policy outcomes that offset the changes made by the Senate.”

House Conservatives: ‘We Gained, America Gained’

Leaders of the House Freedom Caucus quickly confirmed they had obtained promises for future executive action and legislation to defund abortion and transgender procedures, as well as other policy priorities. “We got significant commitments on spending reductions outside the framework of the bill,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “We said, ‘Let’s talk about some offsets elsewhere. Let’s talk about some things the executive can do to mitigate some of the concerns about what the Senate did with our House bill,’” Harris told Perkins.

“We got a major commitment, a serious commitment on spending reduction,” as well as “a large commitment on social issues. We got an agreement that the administration will add adults to their transgender funding limitation. And we’re going to have a discussion with the administration on the egregious, cross-state trafficking in mifepristone,” he said. “We talked about looking at program integrity in food stamps and in Medicaid,” where improper payments and fraud cost “tens of billions of dollars a year.” And “on the Green New Deal/Green New Scam provisions, the administration has a pretty fair leeway to interpret some of the Senate changes” to provisions of the Biden administration’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act.

Harris also revealed the House Freedom Caucus extracted a promise from the speaker of the House to address the nation’s ever-expanding national debt. “The speaker has agreed to have another vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment, because the last one we had was in November of 2011, trillions of dollars of deficits ago,” he said.

The House Freedom Caucus left the negotiations satisfied. “Everything we did was perfectly in line with the president’s agenda. So he went along with it,” said Harris. “We gained, America gained.”

In a statement sent to The Washington Stand shortly after the vote, Rep. Self confirmed the House Freedom Caucus “moved the bill dramatically to the right on almost every front and at every stage of the process, including overnight, as a small group of us continued working with the White House to address critical policy and spending issues.”

The bill threatened to further divide the Republican Party, as many Republicans reluctantly embraced the bill as the best alternative capable of passing Congress. “People with the same principles, looking at the same facts can actually apply and analyze those facts a little bit differently and reach a little bit different conclusion,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) told “Washington Watch” later on Wednesday. “This is not the end-all, be-all decision for every moral matter that we have to deal with in Congress. This is, at its core, a bill about taxes and liberty.”

Social conservatives have long seen taxes and defense spending prioritized, while promises of pro-life or pro-family action do not come to fruition. However, President Trump has repeatedly said he will govern by the motto, “Promises made, promises kept.”

In part, social conservatives in the Trump administration may be wary of submitting legislation for fear liberal Republicans will exercise their collective muscle in negotiations. Harris noted the Trump administration “didn’t want to have to send this bill back to the Senate,” where senators such as abortion-supporting Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) could assure the bill “would actually get worse.”

What Is in the One Big Beautiful Bill?

As The Washington Stand reported, the surviving provisions largely carry out President Trump’s legislative agenda:

  1. The revised bill increases the child tax credit to $2,200, indexed for inflation, down from $2,500 in the House bill. Without action, the child tax credit would have returned its pre-Trump level of $1,000.
  2. The bill creates “TRUMP” savings accounts for children, indexed to the stock market like a 401(k), with a $1,000 deposit from U.S. taxpayers upon the birth of each child. The bill also furthers school choice by expanding educational savings accounts.
  3. The bill makes permanent tax advantages from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including expanded personal exemptions and incentives for business research and development. “For working families, The One, Big, Beautiful Bill prevents a looming $1,700 tax hike and instead puts more money in Americans’ pockets — including upwards of $1,300 for tipped workers and $1,400 for hourly workers working overtime. Families will see a nearly $11,000 boost in take-home pay,” House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) told TWS. “Households making under $100,000 will see a 12% tax cut compared to what they pay today. The average family of four will see nearly $11,000 more in their pockets each year. Real wages for workers will rise by as much as $7,200 a year,” Smith added on the House floor. The final bill gives qualifying senior citizens a $6,000 deduction, which the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates will assure that 88% of seniors on Social Security have no federal income tax liability. It eliminates federal income taxes on tips up to the first $25,000, phasing out for those who earn $150,000 a year (or couples making $300,000). Taxpayers may also deduct up to $12,500 of overtime pay under the same condition; it lapses in 2028. The bill also lets people who buy cars made in America write off up to $10,000 in interest on the car’s loan.
  4. Enhancing border security. “This bill gives President Trump the tools he needs to finish securing the border by providing $175 billion in new funding. It will allow for completion of the border wall, fund ICE deportation efforts, and hire and train new border patrol agents,” agreed Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) in a statement sent to TWS. It also taxes remittances to foreign countries. “It secures our border, funds the largest mass deportation operation in American history, and delivers the tax relief working families deserve,” Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) told TWS.
  5. Securing national defense. The bill increases defense spending by roughly $160 billion, including $25 billion for a domestic “Iron Dome” missile defense system.
  6. Student loan reform. The bill imposes a $257,500 lifetime cap on student loan borrowing and reduces provisions that allow borrowers to delay paying back their students loans.
  7. Underwriting high-tax states and cities. The Senate version of the bill increases the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to $40,000 for the next five years.
  8. Slowing our exit from the Green New Deal. The Senate bill ends tax credits or subsidies for green energy projects, such as wind and solar power favored by the Biden administration, for projects constructed within a year of the bill’s passage and that go into service by the end of 2027. But the latest bill removed a proposed excise tax on companies in those industries that use more than a specified amount of components (such as solar panels or batteries) made in China. The Senate version generally slows down the GOP’s efforts to phase out the Left’s cherished credits.
  9. Slowing SNAP reform. The Senate bill delayed reforms to the much-abused Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, program in certain states.
  10. Reforming Medicaid. Medicaid recipients capable of work and who do not have a child at home must spend 80 hours a month in paid work, community service, or schooling/vocational training. The work requirements would save taxpayers an estimated $325 billion over the next 10 years. The bill also reduces the Medicaid provider tax from 6% to 3.5% starting in the 2028 fiscal year.

Despite some well-received economic news, conservatives say the bill still spends too much money and raises the debt ceiling to $5 trillion.

Rep. Mark Harris warned, “if Washington’s overspending addiction continues, the opportunity to put our country back on a path to a sound financial future is in jeopardy. In the coming months, Republicans must use every tool at our disposal to rein in government spending. This is not the end of our work.” (Emphasis in original.) Still, he said, “The country is much better off today than it was a few days ago. There’s certainty in the average working man and woman’s pocketbook that they’re not going to get a tax increase next year” — and greater faith “that the president is watching out for them.”

Nonetheless, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) promised TWS that conservatives would not rest long before collecting the policy commitments they earned in exchange for supporting the amended legislation.

“Celebrate today,” said Roy. “Fight again tomorrow.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘What Is an American?’ Why We Remember Heroes on Our National Holiday

A Historic Week at the Supreme Court

CIA: Intelligence Community’s 2016 ‘Russian Collusion’ Claims Suffered Political Bias, Procedural Anomalies

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Has ‘Excellent News for Families’: FRC Analyst

/in , , , , , , /by

Pro-family experts are touting multiple provisions of President Donald Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” aimed at fulfilling the administration’s promises to facilitate family formation, ease adoption, and benefit homeschool students or those who attend religious schools.

The House Ways and Means Committee passed the 389-page bill on Wednesday morning by a 26-19, party-line vote. “It’s sad that every single committee Democrat voted for the largest tax hike in American history and against additional tax relief for families, farmers, and small businesses,” Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) told The Washington Stand. The bill now moves to the House Budget Committee.

In its current form, the bill contains economic provisions pro-family advocates say they have supported for years.

Increasing the Child Tax Credit

The president’s signature economic bill from his first term, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), doubled the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from $1,000 to $2,000 and raised the income families can earn as the credit phases out. Without renewal, the child tax credit would be cut in half at the end of this year. The “big beautiful bill” increases the child tax credit to $2,500 for the tax years 2025 through 2028 — the end of the Trump administration. The extra $500 CTC boost adjusts for the rampant inflation of the last Democratic administration, according to its advocates.

If Congress does not vote to maintain the increased CTC, the credit will return to $2,000; however, the bill makes that level permanent and indexes it for inflation each year, rounded to the nearest $100. The bill also requires both parents to have work-eligible Social Security numbers before claiming the credit.

“This is excellent news for families,” Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, told TWS. He singled out the bill’s proposal to increase the CTC as the fulfillment of a long-term policy goal of the organization’s. “FRC has long advocated for increasing the child tax credit. We advocated for it to be doubled the last time, and it is good to see it pegged to inflation and made permanent. In the current round of budgeting, where they’re trying to cut hundreds of billions of dollars, this is a really huge nod to the importance of family.”

Many who advocate for a pro-family tax code have singled out the child tax credit, which was created in 1997, as a way to aid struggling families while reducing the reach of government. “The relatively new child tax credit, which will slowly rise over the next several years to $1,000, should instead be immediately increased to at least $2,500 per child and indexed to inflation,” said Allan C. Carlson, then a distinguished fellow for family policy studies at FRC, during a Witherspoon Lecture more than two decades ago. Carlson has championed what he calls “a pro-family income tax” for decades.

AEI scholar Kevin Corinth made an identical proposal in February in AEI’s “Family Friendly Policies for the 119th Congress,” edited by Timothy P. Carney. “A supersized Child Tax Credit will ease the financial burdens on families raising children and those hoping to welcome new babies into the world,” agreed Patrice Onwuka of the Independent Women’s Forum.

Some of the big beautiful bill’s policies have reopened a rift on the Right, as some conservatives believe the government should make no fiscal policy promoting or discriminating against the nuclear family. Others blame tax credits for removing nearly half of all Americans from income tax rolls, shifting the tax burden onto a shrinking number of high earners.

González says the enhanced CTC will help secure America’s economic future by boosting the nation’s sagging demographics. “If you want to make the federal budget sustainable, you need a growing population to do that,” he contended. “This may be the first major policy move in that direction in years, or decades.”

Population levels are plunging globally, falling by more than half since 1950. The U.S. birthrate rose by less than 1% in 2024 to 1.626, according to provisional data released by the CDC last month, up from an historic low of 1.616 in 2023. Both levels are far below the 2.1 level needed for replacement. The pattern repeats throughout the West, where a birth dearth has stunted economic growth. “If we are unable to address our fertility crisis, the U.S. will face an existential economic crisis driven by a steep decline in fertility rates — one that could have an impact measured in the quadrillions of dollars,” wrote Jesús Fernández-Villaverde in The American Enterprise.

Child-Friendly Investment Accounts, Adoption Credits, and More

The “big beautiful bill” delivers numerous other tax policies desired by some pro-family advocates, according to a section-by-section analysis of the bill provided to The Washington Stand by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Make It Easier to Adopt a Child: One provision in the bill (Sec. 110107) gives parents a tax credit to write off up to $16,810 from their taxes in qualified adoption expenses. Under current law, the amount can be rolled over for five years. The new bill does not allow the tax to be rolled over but, beginning in 2025, it makes up to $5,000 of the credit refundable — meaning parents can receive that much money even if they do not owe taxes (have no tax liability); and the refundable amount is indexed for inflation. The credit phases out for those who have an adjusted gross income between $252,150 and $292,150. The bill also gives Native American tribal governments the same authority as states to deem an adopted child “special needs,” making the adoptive family eligible for the full $16,810 potential tax credit (Sec. 110108).

MAGA Accounts for Family Formation: The bill establishes a new category of Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement, or “MAGA accounts” (Sections 110115 and 110116). Beginning in 2026, those with children under the age of eight can contribute up to $5,000 a year (adjusted annually for inflation) to a MAGA account, which is invested in a diversified account that tracks the stock market, each year until the child turns 18. Friends, relatives, employers, and non-profits (including churches) may also make donations to these accounts and — provided the donations go to a broad class of recipients — nonprofits can make unlimited donations. For instance, a veterans organization could offer unlimited support for the children of gold star families.

For children born between 2024 and 2028 — the second Trump administration — the government will deposit $1,000 of taxpayers’ dollars into these MAGA accounts. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made a similar legislative proposal this week, introducing the Invest America Act on Monday.

When the child turns 18, he may take out up to half of its amount for college, vocational training, to start a business, or to purchase his first home. At age 25, he can withdraw the full amount for those purposes; at age 30, he can remove the full amount of the account for any reason.

The Trump administration has sought to promote family formation. “It is the task of our government to make it easier to have kids, to welcome them into the world,” Vice President J.D. Vance told the 2025 March for Life.

Encouraging School Choice and Homeschooling: The proposed “big beautiful bill” creates a new tax credit for those who contribute to charities that provide scholarships for elementary or secondary students to attend private or religious schools (Sec. 110109). It also allows parents, including homeschoolers, to withdraw funds from tax-advantaged 529 accounts to cover a broader array of educational expenses (Sec. 110110), including:

  • curriculum and curricular materials
  • books or other instructional materials
  • online educational materials
  • tutoring or educational classes outside the home
  • testing fees
  • fees for dual enrollment in an institution of higher education, and
  • educational therapies for students with disabilities.

Decreases Government Policies Encouraging Gambling: One provision modestly discourages gambling by reducing how much wagering losses a person can write off (Sec. 110014). Currently, gamblers can write off only gambling losses up to the amount of their winnings, and other gambling-related expenses in excess of the amount they won. The bill reduces all gambling-related deductions to the amount of his winnings.

González was not alone in praising those parts of the bill. “We are encouraged to see the House Ways and Means Committee increase their response to the needs of American families, especially support for young and growing families through the child tax credit and the foster and adoption tax credit,” said John Mize, CEO of Americans United for Life. “We at March for Life are grateful for the pro-life, pro-family reconciliation bill text released today,” according to a post on the annual pro-life event’s social media account. “These provisions will strengthen a longstanding family that benefits all American families,” said Concerned Women for America LAC. And ACLJ Action held that “this Child Tax Credit update sends a powerful message: We value children. We value parents. And we value the American family.”

The bill’s supporters note its overall fiscal impact, as well. “Instead of a $1,700 tax hike, working families still recovering from Biden’s inflation crisis will now receive on average a $1,300 tax cut and workers will get $3,300 more in real income back into their pockets,” said a press release the committee emailed to The Washington Stand Wednesday morning. “Permanence of the 2017 Trump tax cuts will save 6 million jobs, including 1.1 million manufacturing jobs.”

“This cornerstone of President Trump’s economic agenda will put the interests and needs of working families and small businesses ahead of Washington, bring jobs and manufacturing back to America, and usher in a new golden era of prosperity,” Rep. Smith told TWS.

How much of the bill will survive the Senate legislative process remains to be seen. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) told Fox Business on Wednesday morning the bill will see Senate action “probably sometime in the early fall.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Republicans Face a Come-to-Jesus Moment on Reconciliation

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

It was only a matter of time before House Republicans stepped on the big landmines buried under the landscape of reconciliation. For months, GOP leaders had been tiptoeing around the tripwires, desperately trying to keep the fragile peace. But this week, with the clock ticking down to House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) self-imposed Memorial Day deadline, there was nowhere else to step but smack-dab onto the most explosive debate of the president’s “big, beautiful bill.”

For Johnson, who had to be dreading this part of the negotiations, finally getting his 220-member family to sit down and slog through the sticking points on Medicaid reform is a feat in itself. Whether he can cobble together a unified majority at the end of it is the $1.5 trillion question. Part of his headache, as hardline conservatives are quick to point out, is that moderate Republicans are about as enthusiastic about reducing the deficit as their big-spending Democratic counterparts. Especially if it involves paring down bloated programs that Democrats are crying wolf over.

In a two-hour meeting Tuesday night, the collision course Republicans have been on since the 2024 elections finally came to a head. By the end of it, about a dozen GOP members from deep blue states seemed to emerge victorious, somehow managing to persuade the speaker to back off of two pools of taxpayer dollars that were ripe for reform: Medicaid’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) and the state and local tax deduction (SALT). For the swing-state Republicans, it was a coup, but one that came at a very steep price.

If those programs are off limits for a major overhaul, House Freedom Caucus members warned, Republicans have lost the biggest bites of the apple when it comes to Medicaid savings. Some experts estimated the changes to both FMAP and SALT could be worth as much as $600 billion of the GOP’s $880 billion target. And frankly, conservatives worry, they’re running out of places to cut. No one understands that better than Mike Johnson, who gave his word during the war over the budget framework that the House would find at least $1.5 trillion in savings in the final bill. And yet, in this “ultimate group project,” as some are describing the reconciliation package, he had little choice.

The problem for the speaker is the same one that’s given him nightmares for the last year and a half. “[H]e can’t please the moderates without risking an uproar from conservatives. And vice versa,” Punchbowl News’s reporters point out. It’s the “dynamic that’s plagued the last three Republican speakers. Moderates help give Republicans their majorities. Yet they’re often forced to swallow conservative policies that don’t fit the political makeup of their districts.”

Unfortunately for everyone, these concessions only make the path to enacting Donald Trump’s agenda that much murkier. Somehow, Republicans have to find a way to pay for the extension of the president’s 2017 tax relief — or else, Johnson cautioned, everyone is going to have “an increased tax amount [of] $2,000 to $3,000 per family. That’s what’s going to happen if we don’t make the tax cuts permanent.”

Now, as Johnson and his committee chairs scramble to come up with a Plan B to find the dollars they need to offset those costs, even he’s had to adjust his thinking — and his calendar. “It just made sense for us to push pause for a week to make sure that we do this right,” the speaker told reporters Tuesday. Instead of rushing the process, the thorny mark-ups that were scheduled for this week have been pushed off until leaders can find a solution that pleases both sides. “It’s going to take a lot more of these kinds of conversations, ultimately, to get to an understanding that 99% of the House Republican Conference can agree with,” Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) admitted.

So what exactly are the programs that were taken off the table? The short answer is a hugely complicated web of payments, tax caps, and reimbursements that have been abused since Barack Obama expanded Medicaid to people who had no business being on it. But there’s a lot more to these four-letter acronyms (which are more like four-letter words to fiscal hawks).

State and Local Taxes (SALT)

“For as long as Americans have paid federal income taxes,” Bloomberg explains, “they’ve been able to subtract some of what they pay to their state and local governments from their taxable income. This federal deduction for state and local taxes — the SALT deduction, for short — has a big influence on how the tax burden is divided. It tends to help taxpayers in wealthier, more urban states, where sales taxes are higher and real estate costs more.” Back in his first term, President Trump limited the deduction to $10,000 in every state.

With that cap set to expire, GOP moderates (especially the ones from wealthier blue states like New York, New Jersey, California, and Maryland, where things like property taxes and the cost of living are much higher) want to raise the deduction to anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000. Most conservatives would rather keep the number where it is or eliminate the deduction altogether. After all, most of them represent people who would never be able to claim that write-off. (Only 10% of Americans who itemize their taxes do.) Not to mention that expanding the cap would cost money that the government doesn’t have.

“Lifting the SALT cap to $15,000 for individuals and $30,000 for couples,” House Republicans have warned, “would cost around $500 billion relative to extending Trump’s expiring tax cuts.” Enter the fiscal hawks’ outrage. Instead of finding cuts, moderates are finding ways to spend even more. Still, Johnson vows, “We’re going to find the equilibrium point on SALT that no one will be totally delighted with, but it’ll solve the equation, and we’ll get it done.”

Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP)

Heads collectively exploded when Johnson was asked about a far more egregious practice: Medicaid’s FMAP. When reporters pressed the speaker about changing the federal cost share, the Louisianan replied, “No. … I think we’re ruling that out as well, but stay tuned,” he said.

This debate goes back even further, all the way to the Obama administration when Democrats grossly expanded the government’s health care program to entire populations of previously ineligible, able-bodied Americans. Thanks to that White House and Joe Biden’s, millions of people have flooded the Medicaid rolls, most of whom aren’t seniors, children, or disabled — and who, by their very participation — are robbing truly needy people of the care and benefits they deserve. That problem only ballooned under COVID, as Biden bogged down the program with financially-strapped — but otherwise unqualified — Americans.

Now, years later, Medicaid is struggling to keep up with the burden of enrollees it was never meant to serve — pushing legitimate patients with disability or chronic illnesses to the sidelines.

Republicans have been clamoring to radically overhaul the system and return Medicaid to its original parameters, saving taxpayers billions of dollars in the process. But states have been reluctant to do that because of this FMAP loophole that actually encourages them to grow the program beyond its original purpose. As Stefani Buhajla explained in National Review, the deep dark secret of Medicaid is that its federal funding actually “undermines the program’s core mission.”

Right now, the federal government reimburses a whopping 90% of expenses of those “working-age, able-bodied adults” who were folded into Medicaid under Obama, “regardless of the state’s level of wealth.” In other words, “the federal government provides more-generous support for less needy individuals and comparatively less support for those who are in greatest need of care,” Buhajla emphasized. Those same states don’t receive anywhere close to that reimbursement for the participants who belong in the program.

“It’s nuts,” Family Research Council’s Quena González told The Washington Stand. “It incentivizes states to continue to expand services and eligibility and availability — but only to the expansion population. To those who are disabled or who truly do need some sort of help like this, the states are less incentivized.”

But, he insisted, the FMAP itself is broken, because no state is reimbursed at less than 50%. It’s a great deal for them. “Every state is robbing the American taxpayer by reaching into the till. But they’re hyper-incentivized to do this when they expand beyond the traditional Medicaid populations. See the perverse incentive here? If you’re a blue state Republican from New York or New Jersey, and your state expanded Medicaid by going into these ineligible populations, you get a 90% federal match.” If your colleagues want to cut that, González explained, “it’s not going to be popular back home. So now you’re over a barrel. You’re wedded to this lopsided expansion category — which, by the way, penalizes states that refused to expand Medicaid like Florida and Texas.”

Instead, he continued, Florida and Texas are put in the position of subsidizing the bad choices of leaders in the northeast. It creates this impossible situation where liberal and moderate Republicans from these blue states are “fighting tooth and nail to keep a mega-subsidy that never should have existed.” And the conservatives’ point is that just by returning Medicaid to its original parameters, Republicans could probably save hundreds of millions of dollars.

The House Freedom Caucus understands this. There are more able-bodied Americans “on Medicaid now than any other group,” they stressed, “which means the neediest Americans get lower priority. … This is why Medicaid spending has skyrocketed 51% in the last 5 years alone. This isn’t ‘cutting benefits,’” they reiterated in rebuttal of the Democrats’ claims. “We’re trying to fix the program and protect the most vulnerable.”

On the Senate side, Dr. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) agreed. “We have over 90 million people on Medicaid now. Ninety million,” he repeated on “Washington Watch” Monday. “It was meant to be [for] those who need that help, [who] need that hand up. It was meant for folks in a nursing home [who] maybe that can’t afford nursing home care or folks with a disability. The poorest amongst us is who it was meant for.” And yet, he shook his head, “It’s on a rocket ship as far as the amount of money we’re spending on it.”

Johnson’s Dilemma

“But if you take FMAP reforms off the table and also raise the SALT cap, where do you look for savings?” González wonders. “You can’t say, as a House moderate, ‘We get 100% of everything we want, or we take our marbles and go home.’ At some point, we have to tell them, ‘We can’t afford all of this. We can’t afford the president’s tax cuts, the push for border security and defense, and also make the tax cuts permanent.’ Everyone is realizing that there’s just not enough money to go around and do everything they want to do.” Not only are we “robbing from our children,” he argued, “but we’re playing fast and loose with the truth about where we are financially.”

While there are still ways to salvage some reforms — new work provisions for the Medicaid expansion category is one — the speaker is walking a tight line with conservatives, who are very aware how much they’ve given up already. “I don’t make promises that I can’t keep,” Johnson underscored, presumably about his pledge to conservatives to cut spending. “This is a consensus-building operation,” he implored. “We’ve been working really hard to take all the input and find that kind of equilibrium point where everybody is at least satisfied. Some people are not going to be elated by every provision of the bill. It’s impossible.”

And let’s be honest, Marshall piled on, “It’s an uphill battle. There’s no doubt about it.” But, he insisted, “I have a lot of confidence in Speaker Mike Johnson [and Rep.] Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) over there on the Budget Committee. Those folks, I think they’re doing great work. I think we’ll get it done.” He paused and smiled. “But there’ll be a little bit of hair-pulling yet to get it all the way across the finish line.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Senate Overnighter Sets the Stage for GOP to Clear ‘One, Big, Beautiful’ Hurdle

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

When President Trump coined the phrase “one, big, beautiful bill” to describe his legislative strategy, there’s one word he left out: “complicated.” For House and Senate leaders, it’s been a two-month dance just to get on the same page about the broad strokes of a plan to implement Trump’s agenda. It’s like writing the rules for a game you haven’t even played yet. And this game, a “mega-MAGA” Twister of tax relief, debt limits, budget cuts, defense and border spending, offsets, baselines, and mind-numbing procedure, is winner-take-all.

Turns out, electing Trump was the easy part. Putting some of his biggest priorities into law is a different story. For weeks, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) have been working around the clock, trying to juggle the party’s personalities with the White House’s non-negotiables — and somehow make it all squeeze through the Senate’s rigid rules and the House’s aggressive timeline.

So far, the two chambers have come to the table with very different perspectives on make-or-break items — from how much fat to cut from government to whether America can afford permanent tax cuts. Right now, the Senate’s main goal is to catch up to the House, which approved its framework three weeks ago. Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is doing his best to get his chamber there, finally publishing the text of a compromise bill on Wednesday.

In it, he gives senators a bit more wiggle room on how much spending to cut (the House insisted on a floor of $1.5-2 trillion), while also clearing the fiscal brush necessary to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent and raise the debt ceiling. “The Senate Plan has my Complete and Total Support,” the president posted when the language was released. “Every Republican, House and Senate, must UNIFY. We need to pass it IMMEDIATELY!”

Of course, passing it “immediately” means enduring one of the truly entertaining traditions of the Senate (unless you’re a staffer): the vote-a-rama. One of the conditions of budget reconciliation — which is the path Republicans are choosing so they can enact Trump’s agenda with a simple majority — is that senators can offer an unlimited number of unrelated, off-topic amendments without worrying about filibusters. That usually means the minority takes the opportunity to make a political point or force the other party to cast a vote on an uncomfortable issue.

It also, veterans of the chamber will tell you, takes a lonnnnnng time. “It’s a total and unequivocal nightmare of epic proportions,” Jim Manley, a former spokesman for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, insisted with the drama of someone who’s suffered through it. “For those working in the Capitol, it is an extraordinarily stressful time. Normally cheerful individuals become snarling animals as more and more votes are taken,” he reflected. And what’s so frustrating, he said, is that “it’s largely a meaningless exercise.” “The amendments are BS. If they’re designed to do anything, they’re designed to craft 15-second digital attack ads.”

The members either pretend to hate it or actually do, but the stories that come out of vote-a-ramas are legendary. In a chamber that almost never works on Fridays, it’s the closest thing to a Senate sleepover there is. While the political all-nighters are painful for both parties, they always seem to produce funny anecdotes like back-room poker games, stealth happy hours, regional food wars, and coffee — lots of it. There are the iconic images — like former Senator Joe Manchin throwing pepperoni rolls at reporters in 2015 or the parade of mattresses wheeled in for sleepy senators in 2017.

Right now, the hazing is scheduled to begin Friday night and last until who-knows-when. Technically, it could go on until one party cries uncle and stops offering amendments. The most recent vote-a-rama, in February, lasted until 4:51 a.m,

Once the painful process is over, and the Senate finally passes its version of a plan, the cold hard reality is that it’s just the beginning. The House and Senate will have boarded the same train, but it won’t have left the station yet. “It’s a meaningful step,” Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) agreed, “but it’s a baby step, folks,” he said, tempering expectations. “It’s just a blueprint,” Kennedy said. “The real work starts after we do this.”

After a two-week Easter break, the really uncomfortable conversations begin: negotiating every single detail of the final reconciliation package and getting almost every Republican in both chambers to agree. Or, as congressional leadership might call it, torture. While the GOP might have hung together long enough to get a skeletal outline done, that’s nothing compared to sitting down and going through each and every number, arriving at one that satisfies 270 different people. Already, House members are planting flags in the ground about their “must-haves.”

As FRC’s Senior Director of Government Affairs Quena González told The Washington Stand, “Since this budget resolution is designed to pass with only Republican votes, it’s illuminating different interests in the Republican Party. Defense hawks in both the House and Senate want the Senate’s higher ceiling on Pentagon spending ($150 billion vs. the House ceiling of $100 billion) to eventually prevail. President Trump wants his signature tax cuts from 2017 to be permanent and for Congress to raise the debt limit.”

Then, of course, there are the fiscal hawks, who González points out “are worried about the deficit and debt and generally favor the House language that ties a $4 trillion debt ceiling to at least $2 trillion in overall spending cuts — while at the same time, other Republicans are worried that a $4 trillion debt ceiling could be hit before next year’s election (triggering a second debt ceiling deadline that could force Republicans to compromise with Democrats on policy and spending right before an election) and therefore favor the Senate’s $5 trillion debt ceiling.”

And the clock is ticking. For Congress to hit Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline, House and Senate committees would only have until May 9 to produce their pieces of the budget package, Quena warns, and until May 16 for the Finance panel’s debt limit increase.

In other words, it’s a lot to sort through in a short amount of time. The one silver lining for the GOP is that Democrats, at this point, “have no leverage in all of this,” González continued, “because a budget reconciliation process can be passed, albeit very slowly, on a simple majority vote, so without any Democrats.” Their sole focus, he explained, “is basically trying to gum up the works, force painful votes along the way, and generally rooting for blood.”

And right now, there’s plenty to go around. House and Senate Republicans are at very different places when it comes to spending cuts. Conservatives like Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) agree with the House that now is the time to go big. “My sticking point has always been spending, spending, spending,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” Wednesday. “… [W]e don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. So are we willing to fix it? … We went from $4.4 trillion in 2019 to probably about $7.3 trillion this year. That’s a 63% increase [in spending]. There’s no justification for that. A reasonable pre-pandemic baseline would be no more than $6.5 trillion.”

Trump, the senator said, is committed to getting America back to those pre-COVID levels. “And I think, even more importantly, working with us to develop a detailed and rigorous process to actually achieve it. We’ve never had a process to control spending,” Johnson pointed out. “You may be interested to know the appropriation committees were established to control the big spending authorizing committees. Well, that didn’t work. The Budget Act didn’t work. Simpson-Bowles didn’t work. The Budget Control Act didn’t work. So I proposed a process very similar to a private sector budget review process, where you literally go line by line,” he explained.

“I would recommend involving senators, House members, and the administration,” the senator suggested. “And bring administration officials with their budget gurus and CFOs and literally go [through all] 2,400 individual expenditure lines in the 2025 proposed budget. We have to do that work. Nobody ever wants to do that.”

And honestly, Elon Musk’s team has put Congress in a great position to do that. “DOGE can be very useful,” Johnson observed. “Under reconciliation, we can only address mandatory spending, which is bizarre just in and of itself. So that leaves discretionary spending that has to be passed with Senate Democrats’ help. They won’t.” So he’s pushing an old process that several leaders are dusting off called “rescission” that lets the president claw back spending that’s already been approved. “I think they’re going to move forward on this as well. My recommendation was at least one rescission package a month where Elon and his DOGE group basically bundles up billions of dollars worth of spending rescissions, headlined by the most egregious examples of wasteful and abusive spending.”

At the end of the day, Johnson reminded people, “President Trump is a businessperson. If [your managers] say, ‘Hey, listen, I’ll let you grow your budget by the number of customers you’re serving and inflation — and you come back six years later and [those] budgets are 10% higher than that, you’d go, ‘What are you doing?! Knock it down back to the constraints I told you!’ That’d be a one-minute conversation, and it would be done. This would be easy.”

But unfortunately, Congress has let things get out of hand — with a big assist from the Biden administration. Now, as Speaker Johnson told Perkins, “It has to be Republicans who are [the] grown-ups” and govern responsibly.

Hammering out a bill that can pass both chambers’ wafer-thin majorities is the definition of “challenging,” but the Louisianan is “very optimistic about what we need to achieve over the days and weeks ahead of us.” He understands, “This is our opportunity to deliver what will be one of the most consequential pieces of legislation truly in the history of the Congress and our nation. And working together, we will get this done.”

Well, Perkins replied, “If anybody can defy history, it seems to be your speakership.” Let’s hope that holds for what’s certain to be a bumpy couple of months.

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Trump Crushes Globalization: Unleashes Fear in the Elite, Champions the Forgotten

Crowd Goes Silent When Elon Musk EXPOSES new report sent to Trump and Pam Bondi

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump and GOP Eye Tax Cuts, Border Wall, and Energy Expansion in First 100 Days

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

With at least one outlet calling the U.S. House for Republicans on Monday — which all but ensures a governing trifecta — President-elect Donald Trump and the GOP are set to enact a slate of policy priorities in the first 100 days of the new administration, including extending tax cuts, funding the completion of the southern border wall, and cutting regulations to expand the production of domestic oil and gas.

According to one Republican congressional aide, “The primary focus is simply on extending the Trump tax cuts and ensuring that we are on track to deliver on these campaign promises.” This could involve a further lowering of the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, removing taxes on Social Security income and tips earnings, and adding a deduction on state and local income taxes that was left out of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

In order to pay for the tax cuts, Trump has proposed a 20% universal tariff on foreign-produced goods, with an added tariff of up to 60% for goods produced in China. Economists have mixed views on how beneficial tariffs will be for the economy. Some say they will create higher costs for consumers and businesses in the long-term and run the risk of other countries retaliating with their own tariffs, which could be detrimental for U.S. exporters. But experts such as Alex Muresianu, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, say that universal tariffs between 10% and 20% could raise as much as $3 trillion over a 10-year span.

Still, a recent report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected that Trump’s extended tax cut plan could create $7.5 trillion in additional debt over the next decade. This figure was disputed by Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) over the weekend, who said that the report “doesn’t take into effect the impact of lower tax rates and economic growth as a result.”

As for the incomplete wall along the southern border, the GOP is pledging to finish the job that President Trump started and President Joe Biden refused to complete. Last week, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) stated that planned legislation could include funding to continue the wall’s construction, with construction in Arizona being the priority, sources told Reuters Tuesday.

Another high priority for the administration will be cutting red tape in the U.S. energy sector to increase production.

“The U.S. oil and gas industry [can] shake off oppressive regulation and start getting back to the business of producing oil based off supply and demand expectations, not making decisions trying to get guess what the next regulation is going to be,” Phil Flynn, an energy strategist at The PRICE Futures Group, told The Epoch Times.

Flynn further estimated that under the incoming Trump administration, the U.S. is likely to produce an extra one to two million barrels of oil per day. In addition, Rob Thummel, the senior portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital Advisors, projects that natural gas production will increase by 30 billion cubic feet per day by 2030.

The Biden-Harris administration has enacted a series of policies that have hamstrung the energy sector. In April, the administration increased the lease bond drillers must pay to operate on federal land from $10,000 to $150,000. This followed Biden’s restriction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, which a federal judge overturned in July. Thummel stated that the incoming Trump administration “would immediately reinstate approvals of LNG projects.”

In addition, leases for energy companies to operate on federal land will likely increase dramatically. During the Biden-Harris administration’s first three years, they issued 1,400 leases. In comparison, the first three years of Trump’s first term saw over 4,000 leases issued.

As to the green energy policies of the incoming administration, experts say Trump will likely slow lucrative subsidies that were a primary focus of the Biden-Harris administration but is unlikely to attempt a complete halt. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has suggested that not all subsidies will go away. “You’ve got to use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer, because there’s a few provisions in there that have helped overall,” he stated in September.

Energy experts believe that an “all of the above” approach will be most likely to both bring energy prices down and fortify U.S. dominance in the global energy sector. “A Trump administration has to be promoting all the above energy forms, because the only thing that really digs out of the economic issues that we’re facing with the debt burden that we have is something of an energy miracle,” Neil Winward, CEO of Dakota Ridge Capital, told The Epoch Times.

In a comment to The Washington Times, a Republican source summed up the mindset that the GOP will have on day one of Trump’s term, “We are hitting the ground running.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What We Know So Far about Trump Administration 2.0

It Seems That America Will See a Peaceful Transfer of Power, after All

Hispanic Voters Tired of Dems ‘Ignoring Faith, Family, and Hardworking Individuals’: Congressman

RELATED VIDEO: The Old Border Czar vs The New Border Czar

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

5 More Lies in Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address

/in , , , , , , , /by

The fallout continues over President Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, and his errors, lies, and misstatements continue to pile up. Here are five more false claims Biden made on Thursday night.

1. Biden Claims He Has Created 15 Million Jobs and 800,000 New Manufacturing Jobs

In speaking about his economic record, Biden boasted of creating “15 million new jobs in just three years,” including “800,000 new manufacturing jobs in America and counting.”

Most of the jobs Joe Biden has taken credit for “creating” were merely jobs destroyed by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

The economy under Joe Biden actually created about one-third that many new jobs: The economy added 5.49 million jobs above pandemic level in three years. President Donald Trump’s economy created 6.7 million jobs in the three years before the pandemic. Similarly, Joe Biden has added 114,000 manufacturing jobs, compared to the pre-pandemic level of February 2020. President Trump created 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the same period.

American workers have enjoyed little of this job growth. The U.S. workforce added 2.9 million foreign-born workers (legal or illegal), while there were 183,000 fewer U.S. citizens in the workforce between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the same period in 2023.

Some of this job growth is illusory, since a total of 8.3 million Americans hold multiple jobs, and 386,000 Americans are working two full-time jobs — a number that reached a 30-year high of 447,000 last September. More than two million people work two (or more) part-time jobs. And the number working-age Americans who are working, the labor force participation rate, remains below pre-pandemic levels.

2. Wages Are Up and Inflation Is Down under Biden?

Joe Biden touted his economy as a boon for middle-class workers, adding, “Wages keep going up. Inflation keeps coming down. Inflation has dropped from 9% to 3% — the lowest in the world and trending lower. … Consumer studies show consumer confidence is soaring.”

Real wages remain lower under Biden, thanks to soaring inflation sparked in part by massive rounds of stimulus-level government spending. Americans under Biden need to earn an extra $11,434 a year to maintain the same level of income they had before he took office. The average American, of course, has not closed the gap.

“Bidenflation” shows up in everyday prices: The cost of dairy products has risen 59 cents since February 2021. A loaf of bread costs more dough — 49 cents a loaf more. Other staples, utilities, and necessities have risen, including chicken (41 cents a pound), a dozen eggs (92 cents), gasoline (72 cents a gallon), home heating gas (29%), and electricity (21%).

Rather than address these concerns, Biden focused on shrinkflation and “junk fees.” Even Biden’s speechwriters felt the need to sell the public on their policy’s relevance, insisting, “It matters. It matters.” Biden’s focus invited withering criticism from his chief rival for the presidency. “Biden talked about the SNICKERS bars, before he talked about the border!” posted former President Donald Trump on Truth Social.

The Biden administration did give some indication of who benefitted from its policies: The White House invited Shawn Fain — president of the United Auto Workers, which had delayed its endorsement of Biden’s reelection — to the State of the Union address.

3. The Myth of Trump’s Muslim Ban

In his section on immigration, Biden attempted to distinguish himself from “my predecessor” by saying, “I will not ban people because of their faith.”

Biden is alluding to President Trump’s so-called “Muslim travel ban.” In December 2015, candidate Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Then-President Barack Obama had admitted 12,500 scantly-vetted “refugees” from Syria. Trump also cited widespread, anti-American sentiment and terrorist activity throughout the Islamic world for decades, including a poll of Muslims from the Center for Security Policy which found “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.” But he never pursued such a policy in office, using model policies enacted by the Obama-Biden administration.

In his first week in office, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, placing a 90-day moratorium on some immigration from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also required vetting of people hailing from nations whose background checks do not meet U.S. standards. The move was far from unprecedented. Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, Barack Obama imposed similar restrictions on anyone who was “present, at any time” in Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen in the past four years. Yet activist courts initially ruled Trump could not impose the same policy, eventually accepting an amended version that barred immigration from Iran, Libya, Somalia, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

In 2020, Trump broadened this net of protection by excluding the terror-tied nations of Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. (Muslims make up a mere 4% of Myanmar’s population, 0.3% of Venezuela’s population, and officially zero percent of North Korea’s.) The Supreme Court upheld the policy, Presidential Proclamation 9645, in Trump v. Hawaii (2017). Biden rescinded the executive order on his first day in office: January 21, 2021.

The threat proved to be anything but illusory. Authorities arrested a Syrian refugee, 21-year-old Mustafa Mousab Alowemer, for plotting to blow up a Christian church in Pittsburgh, Legacy International Worship Center, to support ISIS.

4. Making the Rich ‘Pay Their Fair Share’ of Taxes?

Joe Biden promised to enact “a fair tax code” by “making big corporations and the very wealthy finally begi[n] to pay their fair share. Look, I’m a capitalist. If you want to make, you can make a million or millions of bucks, that’s great. Just pay your fair share in taxes.”

The top 1% of income earners paid 42.3% of U.S. income taxes in 2020, the most recent year available, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The top 10% paid 73.7% of income taxes. All told, the top half of income earners paid 97.7% of all taxes, while the bottom half paid 2.3%.

By contrast, a growing number of Americans paid no income tax. An estimated 57% of Americans paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2021, according to the Tax Policy Center.

By any just reckoning, the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share of income tax — and a good deal of our share, as well.

5. Biden Has Not Raised Federal Taxes on Anyone Making Less than $400,000?

“Under my plan nobody earning less than $400,000 a year will pay an additional penny in federal taxes,” Biden claimed. “Nobody. Not one penny. And they haven’t yet.”

If Joe Biden has not squeezed more money out of those making less than $400,000, it’s not for lack of trying. Biden and congressional Democrats have endorsed numerous proposals that would have extracted more of the federal budget from those beneath Biden’s alleged income threshold. Those proposals include:

  • Expanding the number of items that must be registered under the National Firearms Act, with a $200 fee for each item
  • Reinstating the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and $695-per-person penalty, which President Trump eliminated
  • Imposing a carbon and/or methane tax. One proposal would charge companies $1,800 per ton of methane they handle (not emit), with the cost rising 2% above inflation each year
  • Increasing corporate taxes, which pass on approximately one-third of increased costs to consumers by raising prices (and another third by reducing payroll costs/hours)
  • Hiking cigarette taxes, which fall disproportionately on the working class

The greatest way Biden has funded the federal budget at the expense of the middle class is through inflation. As Henry Hazlitt explained in his classic book “Economics In One Lesson”:

“Inflation is a form of taxation. It is perhaps the worst possible form, which usually bears hardest on those least able to pay. … It discourages all prudence and thrift. It encourages squandering, gambling, reckless waste of all kinds. It often makes it more profitable to speculate than to produce.”

Here is the previous collection of “14 Lies and Myths in Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: More Misleading White House Statistics on Unemployment

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.