NY Democrat voted against Trump's ‘big, beautiful' bill but admits he agrees with 75% of it
'Because those things that I just mentioned are so devastating,' Suozzi (D-NY) told CBS News' 'Face the Nation' Sunday when pressed about his opposition to the megabill.
'I like the idea that we're investing more money to secure the border,' said Suozzi, who represents Long Island and part of Queens. '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.'
Advertisement
Host Weijia Jiang had pointed to his recent comments about favoring the bulk of President Trump's marquee agenda bill. Last month, Suozzi told Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, 'I agree with 75% of the stuff that's in the big bill that you guys talk about.'
But the Empire State Democrat argued that preserving the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's lower rates for the wealthy, the Medicaid cuts and the deficit impact of the megabill were too much for him to stomach.
3 Rep. Tom Suozzi acknowledged that he agreed with a lot of the provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Anadolu via Getty Images
Advertisement
3 President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law last Friday.
REUTERS
'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?' Suozzi added on 'Face the Nation.'
Republicans slashed taxes across the board in 2017 and placed a strong emphasis on reducing the burden on businesses. Proponents of the cuts on the top income tax brackets argued that it will affect small businesses that pay their bills to Uncle Sam as pass-throughs.
High-income taxpayers are forced to pay into every tax bracket, so cutting every tax bracket reduces their obligations to the government.
Advertisement
However, there is some evidence that the top 1% of households paid a larger share of federal taxes after the 2017 tax bill than before it, meaning that taxes were about to go up across the board.
If Congress failed to act, many key provisions of the 2017 tax cut would expire at the end of the year.
Suozzi also ripped into the GOP's inclusion of work requirements on Medicaid, noting 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.'
3 The New York Democrat has put a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship during his tenure in Congress.
Getty Images
Advertisement
'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,' he complained.
House Republicans narrowly squeezed the megabill through the lower chamber last week and President Trump signed it into law on Friday during the Fourth of July.
The megabill featured an extension of the 2017 tax cuts, increased energy production, bolstered border security, defense modernization efforts, spending cuts and a slew of other conservative wish list items.
Suozzi also reiterated his concerns that socialist Zohran Mamdani's shock win in the New York City mayoral Democratic primary should be a wake-up call for his party.
'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,' Suozzi said.
'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.'
The Queens and Long Island rep contended that Democrats are often perceived as being 'focused on reproductive rights and on LGBT protections' and need to do a better job of addressing affordability concerns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
32 minutes ago
- New York Post
EPA chief Lee Zeldin unveils Trump admin plan to give jolt to nuclear power plants, zap wind power
The Trump administration is aggressively paving the way to open more nuclear power plants while pulling back on wind power as expensive hot air, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said Sunday. 'President Trump wants [nuclear plants] approved as quickly as possible … It just requires an agency like the EPA to get out of the way,' Zeldin said Sunday on WABC 770 the 'Cats Roundtable' program. He criticized his own agency for examples of 'gumming up the works' in ways that unnecessarily slowed energy projects including nuclear power. Advertisement 4 'President Trump wants [nuclear plants] approved as quickly as possible … It just requires an agency like the EPA to get out of the way,' Zeldin said Sunday. Zeldin said he wants to see Congress approve a law making it easier to license zero emissions nuke power plants, regardless of which political party is in charge of the White House in the future. 'That it's going to require less time, have less cost, and have more certainty. Nuclear is certainly a key part of the future … President Trump is all in. His team is all in. The National Energy Dominance Council is all in,' he said. Advertisement Meanwhile, New York is planning to build the nation's first new major nuclear power plant in more than 15 years, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said recently. By comparison, he said the government has been propping up wind power projects with costly taxpayer subsidies. 4 Zeldin said he wants to see Congress approve a law making it easier to license zero emissions nuke power plants. AP 'Without the government propping up wind, that it becomes even less feasible, it becomes even less economical,' Zeldin said. Advertisement 'If you're not sure which way to go… you look at the map and you look at the economics, well, that should convince you against wind.' 4 New York is planning to build the nation's first new major nuclear power plant in more than 15 years, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said recently. REUTERS 4 'Without the government propping up wind, that it becomes even less feasible, it becomes even less economical,' Zeldin said. Getty Images Advertisement Zeldin recently visited Alaska and was also bullish that new natural gas power plants will open or expand. The former Long Island Republican congressman ran for governor in 2022, losing narrowly to Gov. Kathy Hochul.
New York Post
37 minutes ago
- New York Post
Take a political time-out, Elon Musk: ‘America Party' rant proves even your genius has its limits
Uncharacteristically, Elon Musk is doing a dumb thing. His threat this weekend to launch a third national party, based on his disappointment at President Donald Trump's failure to eliminate the deficit, is likely to be a disaster — for him, and for America. To be sure, it's risky to bet against Elon. Advertisement He's a once-in-a-millennium human talent, combining genius-level performance in engineering, in business and even in politics. (Leonardo da Vinci was a similarly all-around talent, but how many of his inventions actually got built?) Musk was politically savvy enough to see that a Democratic Party win in 2024 would have doomed his business, his plans for humanity and possibly the United States. He went all-in with his money and his fame to help prevent that calamity, for which he deserves our gratitude. Advertisement But. Musk's disappointment that Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act doesn't cut enough spending has him flirting with the idea of creating the independent 'America Party.' And that's pure foolishness. Advertisement Third parties in America have pretty much always been failures, and ruinous for those looking to rein in government. Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party handed the White House to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, with disastrous results. Ross Perot's on-again-off-again campaign — like Musk's, focused on the national debt — ushered in Bill Clinton. Musk's effort is likely to do the same, splitting the votes of Americans who want reform in Washington. Advertisement And it runs the risk of losing the midterms to the Democrats, which will guarantee no action on spending cuts, likely followed by a White House loss for the GOP in 2028. Elon and his fans are right that the debt is an existential threat. But we can't attack it without first taking apart the coalitions that created the problem. That's what Trump is doing. The old establishment GOP of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is gone. The new MAGA party has only a slim majority in Congress — but it was enough to pass Trump's budget bill last week. And while the OBBBA doesn't directly slash the debt, it contains several provisions making it easier to do so. Capping federal student loans will force university tuitions down, which will both cut federal spending and throttle the cash that higher education — a money laundry and employment farm for Democrats — has to play politics with. Massive deportations will decrease the illegal population in time for the 2030 census, costing Democratic states seats in the House and helping to cement a GOP majority, while improving the lives of working-class Americans and boosting tax receipts. Advertisement Even Trump's much-maligned tariffs are returning more revenue than predicted, further reducing future deficits. His policies are already spurring faster economic growth, which (see: Argentina) will help, too. Musk wanted more cuts, and I too would have been happy to get them. But as a technology guy, he must know that major advances require first developing the tools needed to do what you want to do. Advertisement Politics isn't all that different, really. A bigger majority in the House and Senate will free the GOP to go after spending more aggressively. With the Republicans' current razor-thin majorities, passing the OBBBA at all was something of a miracle. And yes, it required them to buy crucial votes with provisions that are basically pork. That's how Congress works, especially with a narrow majority. Advertisement Add 20 or 30 seats in the House, and even as few as two or three in the Senate, and serious change will be much, much easier. There's another cost to Musk's involvement in politics, given his stature as a once-in-a-millennium talent. As someone who's long backed his space-exploration goals — I was policy chair for the National Space Society when many of the legal changes that made companies like SpaceX feasible were put into place — I believe his support for human settlement of the solar system should be his primary focus. That's the place where Musk is literally irreplaceable. Advertisement Putting down your tools to pick up a hose when the house is on fire makes sense, even if you're Leonardo da Vinci. But once the fire's out, it's best to let someone else rebuild the house while you focus on your true calling. Others can hammer a roof together. No one else can paint the Mona Lisa or the Last Supper. I think Musk has enjoyed his political work, which brought him unaccustomed adulation and a break from his grueling routine. But when you have a vocation that matches your unique talents, it's best to focus on that. (Look at Elvis Presley, who wasted many years on acting — at which he was not uniquely talented). Take a vacation from politics, Elon. We desperately need you elsewhere. Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the blog.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Man Who Thinks Medicaid Cuts Won't Cut Medicaid
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. The Trump administration's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' will reduce Medicaid spending by about $800 billion over the next decade by kicking some 8 million Americans off the program's rolls. That is, if you listen to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the hospital industry, or the basic intuition that any plan to spend drastically less money on giving health care to poor people will result in those people ceasing to have health care. But the Trump administration's own projection is that the giant cuts in Medicaid will result in nobody losing coverage. If true, this would be astonishing, the fiscal equivalent of the immaculate conception. Fortunately, the administration has just the man to explain this economic miracle to the public: Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council and a professional soothsayer of implausible events that Republicans hope, or at least claim, will occur. Appearing on CBS's Face the Nation over the weekend, Hassett made his sales pitch. 'It's sound budgetary politics,' he said. 'And I think that nobody's going to lose their insurance.' Sadly for those Americans at risk of losing their access to medical care, and unsurprisingly for those familiar with Hassett's track record as an economic forecaster, his explanation was not particularly convincing. If the Trump administration's estimate is based on an alternative model, Hassett did not share it. Instead, his argument was a purely negative one. The CBO, he explained, cannot be trusted, because it has been wrong in the past—specifically, during the debate over legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) during the first Trump administration. 'Go back to 2017, when we had work requirements for Obamacare: They said that we'd lose about 4 million insured between 2017 and 2019, and about double that over the next 10 years,' he said. 'And in fact, the number of insured went up.' This sounds like a devastating indictment of CBO's ability to measure the effect of work requirements on the uninsured rate. It becomes less impressive when you recall that the bill in question—Donald Trump's attempt to repeal Obamacare—never became law. Trump proposed a national Medicaid work requirement in 2017, and Republicans passed a bill including that provision in the House, but it died in the Senate. (John McCain? Thumbs-down? Remember?) Trump did, however, sign executive orders designed to undercut Obamacare. One of those orders allowed states to implement requirements for Medicaid. Arkansas took Trump up on the offer. The new requirements proved very hard for users to navigate, and caused significant coverage losses without any evidence of having increased employment. This real-world experiment informs the CBO's model of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. [Annie Lowrey: Annoying people to death] Now, it's possible that other states will design systems for verifying employment status that work more smoothly than Arkansas's. If that happens, however, it will defeat the Republican Party's purpose for implementing them. The whole point is to save money, and the only way to save money is by kicking people off the program so that the government doesn't have to pay for their medical treatment. (In addition to those who will lose their health insurance because of Medicaid cuts, the CBO projects that another 8 million people will lose their insurance by 2034 because of changes to the ACA private marketplaces.) Hassett has not only made up a history of CBO being wrong about work requirements; he argues that this imagined sequence discredits the agency. 'They should look back at all the things they got wrong, and explain what they're going to do to get it right in the future and to do a better job,' he said on Face the Nation. 'And if they do that, we'll take them more seriously.' If the administration wishes to hinge its defense of its signature domestic legislation on the premise that sources of inaccurate historical predictions cannot be trusted, it has picked an especially unfortunate spokesperson. Hassett comes from the 'supply-side economics' wing of the Republican Party, a school of pseudo-economic thought once famously derided by George H. W. Bush as 'voodoo economics' for its unlikely claims that cutting taxes can yield higher government revenue. In 1999, Hassett co-authored Dow 36,000, which asserted that the stock market was wildly undervalued and was poised to more than quadruple in a few years. In fact, it would be more than two decades before the Dow Jones hit 36,000. Hassett proceeded to serve as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the first Trump administration, where his capacity for optimistic projection again proved useful. During the first weeks of the coronavirus pandemic, in 2020, Hassett designed a 'curve-fitting exercise' indicating that deaths from the virus would peak in April and trail off to almost zero by mid-May. That is not, in fact, what happened. In a normal administration, an episode like that, let alone two of them, would kill an economist's career. But it is perhaps because of, rather than despite, these absurd predictions that Hassett has found his way into an even more influential role in Trump's second term. Now here he is arguing that people should refuse to take the Congressional Budget Office seriously, because the Congressional Budget Office has made some embarrassing predictions in the past. Instead, we should believe that the CBO's projection of 8 million people losing Medicaid is 8 million too high. Can we at least see the model that arrived at this amazing conclusion? No, we can't. But we should trust the proven track record of Kevin Hassett. Article originally published at The Atlantic
