Transcript: Rep. Tom Suozzi on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," July 6, 2025
WEIJIA JIANG: We turn now to New York Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi. Congressman, thank you so much for your time this morning.
REP. TOM SUOZZI: Yeah, thanks so much for having me.
WEIJIA JIANG: Well, you just heard from Kevin Hassett- you know, like President Trump, he said, without this bill, it would be one of the greatest tax hikes for the American public. They say it is the greatest tax cut in American history. You sit on the Ways and Means Committee, so I have to wonder how you describe it.
REP. SUOZZI: I describe it as the big, ugly bill, not the 'big, beautiful bill.' It's going to do a lot of things that are going to hurt a lot of people in our country. The biggest one, which you talked about with Mr. Hassett, is increase the deficit enormously in the country. And what that does, is that creates inflation, that keeps interest rates high, that makes it hard for people to buy homes, makes it hard for them to borrow money, to do the things that they want to do. In addition, it's going to knock a bunch of people off of health care. We know the Republicans have tried for a decade to undo the Affordable Care Act- Obamacare, and this is kind of a backdoor way to take health insurance away from people that really need it the most here in our nation. And it's going to cause health insurance costs to go up for a lot of people. One of the President's biggest issues he campaigned on was reducing prices rapidly on day one, we're going to cut the costs. Well, costs are not going down, inflation- inflation is going to be affected by this deficit. Interest rates are going to stay high, and this is going to have a negative impact on health insurance costs for many people in our country.
WEIJIA JIANG: I know that you just brought up Medicaid and potential loss of coverage. What do you say to some Americans who might wonder, well, why should the able bodied not have to work in order to access Medicaid?
REP. SUOZZI: Well, you have to understand that 92% of the people that are able to work are currently working, and the 8% that are not are often people that are taking care of disabled children. Remember that two thirds of the people in nursing homes are on Medicaid. One-tenth of all the veterans in the United States of America are on Medicaid. Medicaid is a lifeline for so many people that are facing such difficult circumstances that we can't even possibly imagine. And why would we be taking health insurance and food benefits away from some of the most needy Americans while we're providing what I believe is an unnecessary tax break for some of the wealthiest Americans. It just doesn't make sense that you're reducing taxes for some of the wealthiest people, hurting some of the lowest income people, while blowing the biggest deficit in the budget that we've had in the history of the country. Those things just don't add up.
WEIJIA JIANG: Well, just last week, you said you agree with 75% of what's in this package, that's a pretty significant number. So why isn't it worth the 25% that you don't like?
REP. SUOZZI: Because those things that I just mentioned are so devastating. I like the idea that we're investing more money to secure the border. I like the idea that we are providing tax breaks to lower income folks and hard working middle class folks and people aspiring to the middle class. I like the idea of providing tax breaks for those folks. But why are we providing- and when the economy is doing as well as it has been over the past several years, why would we be providing a tax decrease- tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans in our country, while blowing a massive hole in the deficit?
WEIJIA JIANG: Congressman, I want to turn to an op-ed that you wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week saying, Zohran Mamdani's win in the New York City's Democratic mayoral primary should be a quote, 'loud wake up call for Democrats.' What lessons do you think your party can learn from- from his campaign?
REP. SUOZZI: Well, you know, I disagree with Mr. Mamdani. I have to make that very clear that, you know, I'm a Democratic capitalist. I'm not a Democratic socialist. And- but you have to recognize that he tapped into something. He tapped into the same thing that Donald Trump tapped into, which is that people are concerned that the economy is not working for them. Affordability and the economy is the number one issue in the country. And too often, Democrats are not perceived as being focused on affordability and the economy and the middle class, and people aspiring to the middle class and their economic concerns. They see Democrats as being primarily focused on reproductive rights and on LGBT protections, which are important issues, but they're not the issues that people think about every night when they're lying in bed thinking about paying their bills or when they're talking about how they're going to send their kids to school. So Democrats have got to do a better job learning from both Trump and Mamdani not with their solutions, which I think are wrong, but with the diagnosis of the problem that we're frustrated, we're concerned. Everybody in America, whether you're a right wing conservative or a left wing progressive, should believe that in return for working hard, you make enough money so you can live a good life. You can buy a home, you can educate your children, you can pay for your health insurance, you can retire one day without being scared. People don't feel that currently, and we have to do a better job of communicating that.
WEIJIA JIANG: Well, I'm glad you brought up the perception, because you also wrote that 'Democrats must recognize the future starts with a message of economic security for American families.' I covered the Biden campaign. I covered the Harris campaign. That was the center of their messages. So what's the problem here? Is it the messenger? Is it the messaging? Because they have that message already.
REP. SUOZZI: It's a combination. Number- the Democratic Party as a whole has to have this platform that focuses on what the people care about. They care about the economy, they care about immigration, they care about taxes, they care about crime, they care about health care. But then we have to recognize that the media infrastructure is fractured, and Trump figured it out before the Democrats have, which is that it's not just traditional media like your shows and newspapers, but it's social media. It's podcasts. Podcasts, the top 500 podcasts in America, 400 of the top 500 are right leaning. 100 are left leaning. And of the 100 left leaning ones, half of them beat the, you know what, out of the Democrats. Then you have other national media, and then you have some of this ethnic and underground media related to WeChat and WhatsApp and different types of apps that people use. So we have to communicate across all those platforms, because people are getting their messages in these fractured environments and living in these echo chambers, and we have to do a better job communicating across all these platforms and getting Democrats as a whole to focus on the economy, immigration, et cetera.
WEIJIA JIANG: Alright, Congressman, we are all trying to learn all those new languages. Thank you so much for your time this morning. And we'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
21 minutes ago
- Politico
California's great climate retreat
With help from Will McCarthy and Alex Nieves IT'S TIME TO CALL IT: It's not just President Donald Trump. California Democrats are pulling back on climate, too. In the past two weeks alone, California Democrats have proposed weakening a rule targeting the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, rolled back requirements for environmental reviews in the name of fast-tracking housing and hit pause on a cap on oil industry profits passed just two years before. To be sure, California leaders are still positioning themselves as the vanguard of the resistance to Trump's environmental rollbacks, and polls still consistently find voters believe addressing climate change is worth the cost. Gov. Gavin Newsom has sued to block Trump's removal of California's permission to enforce its clean car standards and vowed to extend the state's landmark cap-and-trade program despite threats by Trump. But they're in a far different position than during Trump's first term, when they were signing deals with automakers to keep the state's emissions rules afloat. It's a tradeoff — freighted with significant and potentially long-lasting policy implications — that party leaders are making in an effort to regain political strength. 'We've got some challenges, and so it just requires some new considerations,' Newsom told reporters last week, after his administration proposed steering clear of the oil-profits cap as a way to keep refineries open. 'It's not rolling back anything — that's actually marching forward in a way that is thoughtful and considered.' 'Affordability' has become the watchword for Democrats who saw inflation woes drive votes to Republicans across the 2024 ballot. In a poll presented to Assembly Democrats during a caucus meeting, cost of living led voters' stated priorities. Climate change sat in last place. 'This is part of the Democrats' doing some soul-searching and really trying to figure out what they stand for,' said Marie Liu, a climate-focused lobbyist and a former top environmental adviser to legislative Democrats. Other parts of the country are pulling back on climate policies in the name of affordability, too. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is delaying plans for a carbon-trading system and slowing enforcement of the state's rules for clean cars and trucks, which follow California's. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore is similarly pausing on carbon trading. And in Congress, some 36 Democrats — including two from California — signed on to the effort to overturn California's vehicle rules. But California, as the state with the strongest suite of climate policies and a decades-long reputation of stalwart environmentalism, is now becoming an unlikely leader in Democrats' pivot as they try to respond to cost-of-living concerns that they fret may have cost them the election. Recall, for example, when Newsom ordered his recycling regulator to rewrite plastic waste reduction rules to lessen costs for businesses. The move upset the state lawmakers and environmental groups who originally negotiated the waste reduction deal but energized business groups opposing similar rules in New York. The moves to control costs are echoing longstanding Republican arguments — and frustrating some allies who say Democrats are capitulating to political pressure. 'California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,' said Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. 'It's questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.' — JBW, CvK Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! PLASTIC COMPROMISE: Sen. Catherine Blakespear toned down a bill Monday that would have required state agencies to buy plastic bottles made from at least 90 percent recycled materials. Blakespear said during an Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing that she'd accepted amendments that lower the recycled content threshold in SB 14 from 90 percent to 50 percent. That level matches standards in AB 793, a 2020 law that requires plastic bottles to contain 50 percent recycled resin by 2030. Groups that had been fighting against the bill, including the California Manufacturers & Technology Association and the International Bottled Water Association, said during the hearing that they were dropping their opposition due to the amendment. The bill cleared the committee on an 8-0 vote. That's a milestone for efforts to clamp down on the state's use of single-use plastic bottles, which have stalled in the past. Legislation proposed last year that would have banned state agencies from buying plastic bottles, AB 2648, died in the Assembly. — AN PROP 103, ROUND TWO?: Wildfires are heating up the property insurance fight — and it's boiling over on to the ballot measure campaign trail, our colleague Will McCarthy reports. Since its narrow passage in 1988, Proposition 103 has set the rules for insurers doing business in California, requiring an elected insurance commissioner to approve any rate changes. The initiative helped keep the state's insurance rates below many other states, even those with lower cost of living, saving consumers more than $150 billion. But the sight of insurers pulling coverage from risky neighborhoods has threatened that consensus. The rapidly intensifying effects of climate-related disasters — notably the tens of billions of dollars in covered losses due to the Los Angeles wildfires — may push more companies out of the state entirely. At a Sacramento event hosted last week by the Western Insurance Agents Association, a leading insurance lobbyist proposed amending Prop 103 so that lawmakers could change the state's insurance regime without having to go back to voters each time — although he says it was just a thought exercise. Consumer Watchdog, which made its name after overcoming nearly $80 million in industry spending to pass Prop 103, is not ready to leave the 2026 or 2028 ballot to its longtime antagonists. The group has long contemplated an initiative that would require insurance companies to provide coverage to residents who fireproof their homes and to offer written justifications when coverage is denied. 'If they want to start a war, we're happy to finish it,' Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court said of any insurance industry effort to revisit Prop 103. — WM, CvK WHAT'S IN CONSERVATION: California is inching its way towards its goal to conserve 30 percent of both land and coastal waters by 2030. As of last month, 26.1 percent of California's lands and 21.9 percent of its coastal waters are under 'long-term conservation and care,' according to a new progress report published Monday by the Newsom administration. That's up from 25.2 percent and 16.2 percent last year. Much of the new additions came via President Joe Biden, who designated two new national monuments (the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument) and one new national marine sanctuary (the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary) in his final months in office. Trump has signaled his interest in undoing the national monument designations, though any such move would likely end up tangled in the courts for years. — CvK THE BLM SHUFFLE: The Bureau of Land Management is temporarily moving Joe Stout, the director of its California state office, to its top career position in Washington, D.C., writes Scott Streater of POLITICO's E&E News. Stout will serve as acting deputy director of administration and programs through at least early August. The position was formerly held by Mike Nedd, who was involuntarily removed from the post in May, as Scott reports. TEAM TOXICS: Newsom announced two appointments to the Department of Toxic Substances Control on Monday. Thanne Berg was named deputy director of the department's Site Mitigation and Restoration Program, which oversees evaluation and cleanup of contaminated properties. Berg is currently an acting deputy director for the program and was previously an attorney at U.S. EPA. Albert Lundeen was named deputy director of DTSC's Office of Communications. He's been an assistant communications secretary at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation since 2023 and previously served as the California Energy Commission's deputy executive director for strategic planning and media. — Elon Musk and Donald Trump are back to fighting, but this time Musk might have Andrew Yang in his court. — The Public Policy Institute of California tapped UC Merced assistant professor Adeyemi Adebiyi to explain why dust is on the rise in the state. — The Los Angeles Times does a post-mortem on the 'Polluters Pay' bills.
New York Times
31 minutes ago
- New York Times
Veterans Affairs Dept. Scales Back Plans for Vast Job Cuts
The Department of Veterans Affairs has scaled back its effort to reduce its work force by more than 80,000 people, saying on Monday that it intended to cut nearly 30,000 jobs by the end of September instead. The department effectively abandoned its previous plan to fire tens of thousands of workers as part of President Trump's wide-reaching plan to slash the federal bureaucracy. The new target, outlined in a department news release, would slash a work force that numbered 484,000 earlier this year to about 455,000. Nearly 17,000 employees have already left. Instead of firing workers, the rest of the cuts would be made by offering early retirement or severance payments, along with what the department described as 'normal attrition' — the small percentage of employees who quit or move to other jobs every year. 'A departmentwide R.I.F. is off the table,' said Doug Collins, the veterans affairs secretary, referring to a reduction in force, the formal process to initiate mass layoffs in the agency. 'As a result of our efforts, V.A. is headed in the right direction — both in terms of staff levels and customer service,' he said. The department, which provides health care for military veterans, had previously insisted that job cuts would not affect services, and said again on Monday that it had 'multiple safeguards in place' to prevent disruptions. A law signed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had significantly expanded the veterans benefits system and set off a record-breaking hiring spree at the department. The department said on Monday that it had continued to cut a backlog of benefits claims after a spike during the Biden administration. In addition to its primary mission of providing care to veterans and serving as the nation's backup health care system, the department also oversees some medical research and manages veterans benefits programs — like pensions, banking, home loans, insurance, job training and funding for college degrees.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Six months after L.A. wildfires, survivors struggle to rebuild amid insurance battles
California Gov. Gavin Newsom marked six months since the historic Palisades and Eaton Fires. The Los Angeles area wildfires started Jan. 7, killed 30 people and destroyed thousands of homes. Elise Preston looks at the progress to rebuild and restore the communities affected.
