Speaker Johnson, Bessent say SALT deal is ‘very, very close'
Johnson and Bessent met with GOP senators during their lunch on Friday to pitch them on the framework they agreed to with a handful of moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who was at the gathering, said the proposal would make the SALT deduction cap $40,000 for five years, then $10,000 for the following five years.
Emerging from the huddle, both Johnson and Bessent said talks were nearing the end.
'I believe they will,' Johnson said when asked if Senate Republicans would accept the SALT plan. 'They're gonna digest the final calculations but I think we're very, very close to closing that issue out.'
Bessent echoed that sentiment, saying negotiations were 'very, very close' and noting that the reception among Senate GOP members to the proposal was 'varied.'
The SALT deduction cap has been one of the thorniest hangups stalling progress on the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill,' which leaders are trying to send to President Trump by their self-imposed July 4 deadline.
The House's version of the bill included a $40,000 deduction cap — quadruple the $10,000 cap in current law — for individuals making $500,000 or less. The Senate's edition of the legislation, however, proposed a $10,000 cap, sparking howls among House Republicans.
Many Senate Republicans have wanted to chop down the House's deduction cap, threshold and phaseouts to increase savings, especially as none of them are from high-tax blue states.
News surfaced of a potential SALT breakthrough Friday morning, with sources telling The Hill that the administration and key members of the SALT Caucus were zeroing in on an agreement.
Not all lawmakers in the SALT Caucus, however, are on board. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who has been one of the most vocal in the group, told reporters earlier on Friday that he 'heard of a deal' involving a $40,000 cap for five years and then a $10,000 cap for the following five years, which was a non-started for him.
'I'm a hard no on that,' he said of the blueprint, saying the proposal 'just affirms the very thing I've been against for so long.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrat calls Murkowski ‘cheap date' over whaling tax carve-out
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) quipped that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was a 'cheap date' for voting for President Trump's giant tax and spending package, seemingly for a tax break for fishermen, during a House Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday. The comment came after Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) asked House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) about a new tax break on whalers and fishermen. It was one of many Alaska-specific items that were added to the bill in the final weeks. 'Are you talking about allowing someone who uses a harpoon to deduct the cost of that harpoon? That's correct, that's included,' Smith responded. 'It's a business expense.' 'It's a new tax break,' Neguse interrupted. 'It's a business expense that was capped at 10,000 dollars and now they can deduct it,' Smith continued. 'Up to $50,000, right?' Neguse added, which Smith confirmed. 'Why was that added? I think we all know, right?' Neguse asked while smiling, seemingly referring to Murkowski, who was initially a 'no' on the bill but flipped after grueling last-minute negotiations. She sealed the deal as a crucial 50th vote for Republicans. 'You'd have to talk to the senators,' Smith responded. McGovern, a ranking member of the House Rules Committee, later interrupted Neguse to ask if that addition to the bill was 'all it took' for Republicans to get a 'yes' from Murkowski. 'Is that all it took?' McGovern asked Neguse. 'I'm not sure,' Neguse responded. 'Boy, she's a cheap date,' McGovern said before Neguse continued questioning Smith. The bill, which passed in the Senate on Tuesday and now heads to the House, allows a tax exemption for fishers from western Alaska villages and a separate provision that gives some whaling captains in the state the ability to deduct $50,000 of their expenses, a fivefold increase. Murkowski said on Tuesday that the process that led her to vote for the bill was 'agonizing,' noting that she hopes more will be done to improve the bill. She also said she 'struggled mightily' with the potential impact of cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on vulnerable populations. 'This is probably the most difficult and agonizing legislative 24-hour period that I have encountered, and I've been here quite a while and you know I've got a few battle scars underneath me,' Murkowski told reporters.
Bloomberg
29 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Tax Bill Runs Into GOP Resistance in the House
"Balance of Power: Late Edition" focuses on the intersection of politics and global business. On today's show, Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, shares her frustration with the Trump Tax Bill passing in the Senate and talks about whether or not the legislation will pass in the House. Former Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Jared Bernstein, discusses what to potentially expect from the White House and the Trump Administration on tariffs and trade in the upcoming days as the tariff deadline is July 9th. Sarah Chamberlain, Republican Main Street Partnership President & CEO, talks about next steps from the House as they look over the Senate's passed tax bill. (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senator sounds alarm over secretive tax change discovered last minute in 'Big Beautiful Bill': 'It will create uncertainty and freeze the markets'
Lawmakers and business leaders spoke out after potentially devastating new provisions to hobble clean energy efforts on two fronts were quietly slipped into a sweeping "megabill" — and strangely, Senators from both sides of the aisle claimed ignorance about the origins. In mid-May, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" was introduced in the House of Representatives and has since meandered through both chambers of Congress, with lawmakers in the House and the Senate debating, amending, and re-drafting the sprawling legislation piece by piece. On Monday, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy tweeted about a then-newly introduced version of the bill, pledging to go "through it line by line" and to disclose the "hidden provisions [his team] found." Murphy said it was "bad enough" that the bill initially cut incentives for wind and solar energy while adding a mysteriously added tax on those industries. In a follow-up tweet, he highlighted yet another provision aimed at dismantling the clean energy industry. "A new tax break for coal companies! So the tax incentives for wind and solar are GONE, and the coal industry is getting NEW tax incentives," a shocked Murphy tweeted. "It's official policy now to not just deny global warming exists - but to actively make it WORSE," he added. Murphy was referencing a "bizarre fossil fuel handout" for metallurgical coal — a specific kind of coal used in the production of steel, not for generating energy. Not only were the changes "bizarre," they were mysterious, and Senate Republicans asserted they had no idea who added the solar one or when, per NBC News; it's unclear so far if they knew how the coal one originated. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski was one lawmaker perplexed by the provision, which she said was "just entirely punitive to the wind and solar industry." According to the New York Times, even those who oppose renewable energy subsidies deemed the provision excessive, with one vocally disavowing an excise tax on renewable energy. News of changes to the megabill broke overnight on a weekend, stunning clean energy advocates into action in the middle of the night. American Clean Power Association chief executive Jason Grunet told the Times that the additions to the bill "came as a complete shock." The excise tax "is so carelessly written and haphazardly drafted that the concern is it will create uncertainty and freeze the markets," Grunet warned. On July 1, after a "marathon overnight session," the megabill narrowly passed Tuesday in the Senate with a 51-50 tally, after which it headed back to the House for a vote. Clean energy investments don't just affect households with solar panels, electric vehicle owners, or individuals directly involved with those industries — experts project that the absence of support for renewables will raise energy costs in the United States across the board. Bipartisan objections and critiques from fossil fuel advocates further underscore how economically devastating the bill would be to the energy sector should the new provisions survive a House vote. While the "cost of living" has dominated political discourse in recent months, the lasting environmental impact of this proposed legislation — partly due to a loss of subsidies — would be a devastating step backwards. Should the government be paying us to upgrade our homes? Definitely Depends on how much it costs Depends on what it's for No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. A controversial provision aimed at selling off public land was spiked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately removed from the bill following public outcry. Public pressure works, and calling lawmakers to voice opposition to anti-clean energy provisions can go a long way — particularly given bipartisan reservations voiced by Senators. Those interested can visit to look up their representatives and how to reach them. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
