Latest news with #RonJohnson
The Hill
12 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
GOP leader sets Saturday vote on Trump ‘big, beautiful bill' despite Republican pushback
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate Republicans to expect to see the legislative text of the budget reconciliation package on Friday evening and then to vote at noon Saturday to begin debate on President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Thune gave GOP senators the updated schedule after they met with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to discuss a tentative deal between the White House and House Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions from $10,000 to $40,000 for a period of five years. But Thune acknowledged after the meeting that the schedule could slip, calling the Saturday vote 'aspirational.' 'All of it depends on we got a few things we're waiting on, outcomes from the parliamentarian. If we can get some of those questions, issues landed then my expectation is at some point, yeah, tomorrow we'll be ready to go,' Thune told reporters. 'I said, again, aspirationally, that we'd try to do it at some point in the middle of the day,' he said of the plan to vote to proceed to the bill on Saturday. Senate Republicans control a 53-seat majority and can only afford three GOP defections on the bill and still pass it with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance. Several GOP senators, however, refused to say whether they would vote to proceed to the bill, including Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). 'I don't know what we're voting on,' Cassidy told reporters when asked if he would vote for the motion to proceed to the bill. Murkowski said, 'We have not seen text. I don't have anything more to say other than that.' Hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare spending is a major problem for several Republican senators, including Murkowski and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), among others. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) appeared angry over the decision to forge ahead with a vote, despite his pleas to spend more time on finding additional spending cuts. 'We'll see,' he said when asked about whether he would vote to move forward. He said before the lunch meeting that the Senate is 'not ready' to begin voting on the bill this weekend. 'We're just not ready for it, I hope that they don't do that,' he said. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters after the lunch that he's not ready to vote to move forward on the bill unless he sees substantial changes to the bill. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he's a hard 'no' on the legislation because it includes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion. 'Some people want to spend more money , some people want to spend less money. And so they're pulling. I don't know if it rips. If they keep going in the current direction, they could rip it apart,' he said. 'I think it eventually is going to be much more of a spending bill than a bill that rectifies the debt problem.'
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Faces MAGA Revolt as Big Beautiful Bill Blows Up Over Medicaid
President Donald Trump was promoting his so-called 'big, beautiful bill' on Thursday, but his signature legislation faced a major setback in Congress. Senate Republicans are still working to address major points of contention as they scramble to pass their version of the president's domestic spending agenda ahead of the Fourth of July. But Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who determines which provisions adhere to Senate rules for passing legislation through reconciliation, nixed provisions that restrict the state provider tax used to pay for Medicaid as well as measures to limit undocumented immigrants from using public benefits. Changes to Medicaid were part of the way GOP lawmakers were attempting to offset the cost of making Trump's tax cuts permanent. 'That's a big old grenade,' said Sen. Ron Johnson after already saying he cannot accept a 'one and done' bill and blasting its impact on the deficit. The ruling sends Senate Republicans back to the drawing board on the controversial issue, which had already received pushback from Senators Josh Hawley, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski for how the original proposal would hurt rural hospitals. The roadblock has divided GOP senators. Senator Roger Marshall said on Thursday that MacDonough has been in the position too long and needs to be fired. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he would not overrule the Senate parliamentarian. His sentiments were echoed by other GOP senators, including Sen. Bill Cassidy, who said there needs to be a 'neutral arbiter.' Sen. Collins also said she was against it. 'What people need to remember, what comes around goes around,' Collins said. 'When it comes to the parliamentarian, she may rule the way you like one day, the way you don't the next.' The White House called the latest setback 'part of the process' and signaled it still expects the president to sign the bill next week. 'We expect that bill to be on the president's desk for signature by July 4th,' insisted Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Trump has been on the phone with senators. He spoke with Hawley on his way back from NATO, but he hasn't made a visit to the Hill to rally Senate support like he did before the passage of the House bill. Senator Kevin Cramer laughed on Thursday as he said he would recommend that the president come to meet with GOP senators. But as Senate Republicans struggle to draft a bill that complies with the rules, so they only need to reach the 50-vote threshold to pass it, more House members are threatening to sink the Senate bill if it comes back to their chamber. MAGA members of the House were infuriated by the intervention. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was the latest to blast the Senate effort after the parliamentarian scrapped the Medicaid provider tax policy. She claimed on X that their goal was 'kicking illegals off of Medicare and Medicaid' but that 'the UN-ELECTED Senate Parliamentarian used the Byrd Rule, meaning these Trump agenda priorities, that deliver our campaign promises, need to be stripped out of the One Big Beautiful Bill.' 'How is it that an unelected swamp bureaucrat, who was appointed by Harry Reid over a decade ago, gets to decide what can and cannot go in President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill?' wrote Rep. Greg Steube. Rep. Chip Roy also has warned that he believes the Senate version of the bill is heading in the wrong direction after he was a tough sell on voting for the House bill last month, which passed by one vote. The parliamentarian still has other measures in the draft legislation to rule on, so further challenges could follow. GOP senators acknowledged on Thursday that the situation was fluid. Even before the latest setback, conservative House Republicans were already threatening to vote against it if the Senate finds a way to get 50 votes and send it back. House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris posted on X that the proposed Senate version of the bill 'weakens key House priorities.' He took issue with its provisions on Medicaid, not rolling back clean energy tax credits enough, and said it greatly increased the deficit. 'If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version, I won't vote 'present.' I'll vote NO,' he wrote.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
As Christian missionary, I oppose increasing deficit to deport peaceful migrants
Few leaders today are willing to stand up against policies that saddle our children and grandchildren with massive debt. As the "big beautiful bill" comes before the U.S. Senate for consideration, Wisconsin's senior U.S. Senator, Ron Johnson, is right to oppose the current version. I spent most of my career as an evangelical missionary in Central America, and now in my retirement I teach English to immigrants through my church. There are some provisions of this bill that I appreciate. As a pro-life Christian, for example, I would be happy to see Planned Parenthood defunded. Yet, there are several problems with the bill overall, which would add $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, in part as an effect of the bill's dramatic spending on immigration enforcement. There's no question that Sen. Johnson is committed to secure borders, as am I. But the reality is that the border is relatively quiet right now, with so few individuals arriving unlawfully that most Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border do not interact with a single unlawful crosser in a typical month. While some new resources may be needed, $60 billion for border security is a ton. At a certain point, more walls and Border Patrol staffing start to look more like a government-subsidized jobs program than a real national security strategy. Similarly, Immigration & Customs Enforcement needs enough funding to detain and deport violent criminals, as President Trump has said is the priority. But with $3.4 billion currently allocated for detention, most currently-detained individuals have not been convicted of any crime, and the greatest increase in detainees has been among those never accused of any crime. This suggests that the funding is not targeting violent criminals but rather sweeping up peaceful individuals who pose no threat. Yet this bill proposes $45 billion in new funding for detention alone. Letters: House budget provision exempts executive branch from following court orders That spending doesn't just increase the deficit. It also means detaining hardworking members of our community, including the dairy workers our state depends upon. Many of these individuals entered lawfully. They were sponsored by churches or family members, came through airports and lived and worked legally in our state until the administration terminated their temporary legal protections, making them vulnerable to detention and deportation. Johnson has rightly affirmed that legal immigrants contribute in important ways to our state's economy, and Trump has also acknowledged the indispensable role of many immigrants in agriculture and other sectors of our economy. But the budget bill would almost certainly lead to many being detained and deported at taxpayers' expense. When I lived abroad as an American in Costa Rica, I had to navigate that country's rules governing foreigners' presence, and I understand that our country must have such processes as well. But I was never made to feel hunted or harassed, as many immigrants do here today, even those who entered lawfully and have been working lawfully. Now, as I help hardworking farmworkers and other immigrants learn English here in rural Sheboygan County, I've noticed how our current political climate has instilled fear among the honest, hardworking immigrants I serve. It concerns me deeply. So, while I'm concerned about this bill for fiscal reasons, I'm especially concerned as a Christian. Four out of five of those vulnerable to detention with all this extra money are fellow Christians, as a report from the National Association of Evangelicals and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops documents. Opinion: Wisconsin voters don't want to lose health coverage. Yet 96,000 will under Trump Some of them — such as Afghan Christians who have recently been threatened with deportation — would be returned to likely martyrdom. This has drawn the concern of leaders at conservative Christian organizations like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Wisconsin Family Council. I'm thankful for Johnson's independence in speaking out against the fiscal excesses of this bill, and I hope and pray he'll hold his ground. There are existing bipartisan frameworks for immigration reform, such as Republican Representative Maria Salazar's Dignity Act, which would present a much better option, ensuring secure borders without terrorizing law-abiding individuals and indebting out grandchildren. I pray that Congress will consider these potential solutions. Rev. Thomas Soerens served for three decades with the mission agency of the Christian Reformed Church in North America and now is retired in Oostburg. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Political climate instills fear in honest immigrants | Opinion
CNBC
2 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
Corporate America confident Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' will be passed: CFO survey
One thing has been true about both the Republican and Democratic parties on Capitol Hill in recent decades — even as the partisan divide has widened. No matter how much they may talk about the deficit and reining in spending, that's never stopped either party in power from passing bills that don't exactly add up when it comes to balancing the books of the federal government. Will this time be different? Chief financial officers are betting it won't when it comes to President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill." A majority (86%) of CFOs at companies across the economy surveyed by CNBC say there will be significant changes made to the bill, but it will become law. And they expect the corporate tax breaks temporarily made law by Trump's 2017 tax act to still be on the books as they face expiration at year-end. The quarterly CNBC CFO Council Survey is a sampling of views from its members who represent organizations across the economy. The Q2 2025 survey fielded responses from 30 CFOs. President Trump has demanded lawmakers pass the bill by July 4, and this week, he said no lawmaker could go on vacation until they did so. Meanwhile, House members are pushing back on the already significant changes the Senate has made to their version of the bill, such as extending some clean energy tax breaks on a temporary basis, and there are divisions in both chambers over cuts to social safety net programs and treatment of the SALT taxes. And some Republican senators, led by Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, who called the bill "immoral," are balking at the price rag. Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was pushing for a vote this week, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he expected the Senate to be able to vote by Friday. In end end, there may be more time for lawmakers to iron out their differences beyond July 4 if needed, according to tax experts, and it would be no surprise if they take every opportunity to maximize their leverage. It was not long ago that headlines proclaimed the since-passed House version of the bill as being on the ropes and similar headlines have emerged about the Senate effort. Words like "revolt" and "mutiny" are still in the headlines about the bill's fate in a fractious Capitol Hill environment. Congress, as the old saying goes, has never been good about getting its homework in on time. In this case, even as deficit concerns and an estimated trillions that the bill would add to it are more widespread — within the GOP, in the C-suite, and on Wall Street, where bond traders have pushed their weight around this year in the form of higher interest rates — it's possible the real deadline for the legislation would not arrive until what is known as "X date." That's the date on which the U.S. would not be able to pay its debt to bondholders without raising the debt ceiling. Congress has tied the legislation's fate to the debt ceiling issue — though some lawmakers including Sen. Rand Paul have called for stripping it out. If it remains part of the legislative package, it is a plus in giving lawmakers motivation to pass the bill, and giving them wiggle room to work out differences and continue to be vocal in pushing for their preferred legislative projects past the July 4 deadline. Bessent warned this week that the X date could arrive sooner than expected (the estimated date is in early August, though no more specific date is given) but he said potential court decisions requiring the government to refund tariff payments made under emergency acts could move that date up. There is also the issue of the budget math, with fiscal 2025 set to end in September, meaning if Congress didn't make this law before then, it would have to start over with fiscal 2026 numbers. So there is still room for Congress to kick the can down the road, keep negotiating, and use whatever leverage they have, especially in a narrowly divided Congress, and as a result gives each member more leverage over their vote. The big risk for corporations isn't that business tax rates go up — it's the difference between making the corporate tax cuts enacted in 2017 permanent rather than extending them on a temporary basis again. The Senate is pushing for permanent cuts. In addition, the legislation aims to bring back a trio of preferred business tax items on bonus depreciation, interest expense, and full expensing treatment for research and development costs, which has been a political football in recent years and subject to multiple failed attempts by Congress to revive it, even with bipartisan support. Corporations have said all year that despite President Trump's comments about bringing down business tax rates as low as 15%, their idea of a "win" is not seeing rates go up at the end of the year if the current 2017 tax cuts were to expire — any loss of a permanent extension in the legislation would still be a win, if arguably less than a game-changing one. What corporations say they need right now is for the tax cut certainty to help de-risk the environment for business, especially as tariffs are expected to serve as headwind for the economy in the months ahead. The CFO survey found the majority of CFOs (64%) saying tariffs will hurt the economy. Meanwhile, 100% of CFOs taking the survey said current policy uncertainty is affecting their ability to make business decisions, with about one-third saying it is having a "significant impact." The threat of automatic tax increases set to kick in next year would be what the corporate world sees as a self-inflicted injury in beginning of 2026 on the part of the GOP, and according to the survey, businesses expect the GOP to avoid that. In other survey findings of note: Bond yields: As Congress battles over tax cuts and the deficit, and some Fed officials say they are open to rate cuts as soon as July, CFOs expect yields on the 10-year Treasury to remain elevated, with 86% of the CFOs surveyed saying rates will remain between 4% and 5% at year-end. It is currently near 4.3%, and a third of CFOs expect it to be even higher by December even as the Fed is expected to enact at least a few rate cuts later this year. Inflation: CFOs are more optimistic about the inflation outlook, even as they say tariffs will weigh on the economy. Only a few CFOs cited inflation as the biggest current risk to their business, with consumer demand and trade policy the more feared factors. But nearly 60% of CFOs surveyed say the Fed will not be able to get inflation back down to the target rate of 2% before the second half of 2026, at earliest. The stock market: As stocks have rallied back from the April lows, CFOs have like investors gone back into a more bullish mode consistent with recent years. Each quarter, we ask CFOS which sector will perform the best over the next six months. In recent quarters, there was rare division among CFOs, and a relatively high percentage of respondents not citing technology as the best sector for growth. That's now back to what has been the norm in recent history, with close to 60% of CFOS saying tech is the sector best positioned for growth. But the recent volatility is still weighing on overall market confidence, with almost half of CFOs surveyed saying they think it is more likely the S&P 500 falls back below 5,500 than reach above 6,500 for the first time. The index has been flirting with an all-time high in recent trading. The economy: A recession is still in the cards, according to the CFOs, with over half (55%) saying they expect a downturn either in the second half of this year, or in 2026. Most of that pessimism is geared to the second half of this year, and is likely tied to tariffs and CFO concerns about consumers who they believe are not fully prepared for price hikes, as well as concerns about the labor market softening. And when it comes to a gut check on the overall direction in the economy, the CFOs are close to evenly split, with a little under half saying they are "somewhat optimistic" about the economy, but still a slight tilt to the "pessimistic" camp. On a recent call of CFO Council members regularly scheduled to discuss the economic outlook on weeks when the Federal Reserve's FOMC meets to set rate policy, one retail CFO told their peers, "my main concern is that the consumer feels like the pricing that they're seeing today, it's already impacted by tariffs … and so they're breathing a sigh of relief that they've already seen the impact of tariffs, what it's going to cost them. ... it's August and beyond where we're really going to see those issues. … My big concern is the consumer thinks that they're in great shape … that they've seen the impact, and they haven't seen it yet." Another CFO added, "I feel like the Fed has an especially difficult job right now, given that we are starting to see some cracks in the economic data, but the impacts of tariffs in reality may not come until a much, much later point in time." Seventy-two percent of CFOs said tariffs will cause resurgent inflation.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gilbert: Should Gov. Tony Evers run for a third term? Here are his political pluses and minuses
How well is Democrat Tony Evers positioned to win a third term as governor should he decide to run again next year? In a new statewide poll by Marquette Law School, a majority of voters say he shouldn't run again. But in the same survey, Evers is the only major political figure with a positive rating in Wisconsin. Uncertainties about Evers' political future abound. We don't know if he'll run again in 2026. We don't know who his Republican opponent would be. We don't know exactly what issues will dominate. And we don't know what political surprises are in store. But without knowing those things, we can take stock of the 'fundamentals' of an Evers re-election race — the basic political circumstances — and whether they appear at this moment to be favorable to a third term. I will start with the political pluses for Evers, because I think they are more concrete and convincing right now than the minuses. One is the governor's public standing, as captured in the polls. In the latest statewide survey released Wednesday by the Marquette Law School, 48% of registered voters approved of Evers' performance and 46% disapproved. These are hardly spectacular numbers in and of themselves. But they are good numbers relative to those of other political figures in Wisconsin. More: Marquette poll takeaways: Marijuana, tax cuts, veto power, special education and more In the same poll, taken June 13-19, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Republican Sen. Ron Johnson both have negative favorability ratings. And Republican President Donald Trump has a negative job rating, with 47% approving and 52% disapproving. In fact, Evers has consistently polled better in this state than any other well-known politician. Since he took office in 2019, his average job rating has been 50% approval and 41% disapproval in 35 surveys by Marquette, much better long-term numbers than those of Baldwin or Johnson, and especially those of Trump and his predecessor in the White House, Democrat Joe Biden. Trump has never had a positive job rating in Wisconsin in any poll Marquette has taken during his two terms, even though he narrowly won two of his three Wisconsin elections (he has come close a few times). By contrast, Evers' job rating has been consistently positive or 'above water,' slipping into negative territory only four times in Marquette's 35 polls during his tenure. You wouldn't conclude from the polling that Evers is unbeatable or even 'safe.' But you wouldn't conclude that he's especially vulnerable either. Just to be above water is something of an accomplishment these days in this 50/50 state. A more clear-cut advantage for Evers — and probably the biggest argument in his favor — is the nature of the 2026 election cycle. As a Democrat, Evers would have the good fortune of running with a Republican in the White House. History shows that it's very helpful in big statewide elections to belong to the party out of power nationally. That's because voters in the 'out party' are often more motivated to turn out, and because swing voters frequently vote for change. In Wisconsin, no incumbent governor or senator in the 'out party' (the party that doesn't occupy the White House) has lost an election since 1986. And it has happened only once since the 1960s. Eight of the last nine contests for governor have been won by the 'out party.' The only exception was in 2022, when Evers won re-election despite the political drag of having an unpopular Democrat (Biden) in the White House. With Trump now in the White House, Evers should be better positioned in the 2026 midterms than he was in the 2022 midterms. There is no guarantee that 2026 will be a good year for Democrats, of course. But it's a pretty good bet. Now let's turn to some potential political weaknesses, and these are a little more speculative. One could be age. Evers is 73. Age has not been an issue for Evers the way it was for Biden, who is nine years older and came across to voters as a person in decline before he finally withdrew from the 2024 election. But it's certainly possible that the combination of being in his 70s and seeking a third term could work against Evers politically among voters hungry for new faces and new leadership. It's also possible that simply seeking a third term could come with its own hurdles. Since a governor's term in Wisconsin was lengthened from two years to four in 1970, only one person has won more than two terms in a row: Republican Tommy Thompson. Only one other person has tried, Republican Scott Walker, who lost to Evers in 2018 while seeking a third term. Although the dynamics of Senate elections are different, both Wisconsin senators struggled mightily in their recent quests for a third term. Johnson won by 1 point in 2022, his closest race. Baldwin won by less than a point in 2024, her closest race. Asked in the new Marquette poll, 'would you personally like to see Tony Evers seek a third term as governor in 2026?' 42% of registered voters said yes and 55% said no. Pollsters generally view this question as a less reliable measure of an incumbent's support than job approval. And Evers does better on this question than Walker did before seeking a third term, when only 36% said he should run again. But these numbers still suggest that the burden would be on Evers to make the case for such an extended stay in office. Finally, let's consider one other factor that could work either for or against Evers, and that is the state's recent history of divided government. Evers has served his entire time with a Legislature controlled by Republicans. That means Evers hasn't been able to do a lot of things to excite people and thrill his supporters. But it also means he hasn't been able to do a lot of things to anger people and mobilize his opponents. In fact, 2026 would represent his first real chance to govern with a friendly legislature, since the redrawing of districts in 2024 gives Democrats a plausible shot at legislative power next year after a decade and a half of GOP control. Sixteen months ahead of the next election, there is room for debating what Evers' odds would be of winning a third term in a state he carried by 1 point in 2018 and 3 points in 2022, a state in which the last two Senate elections and the last three presidential races were all decided by a percentage point or less. I think history is a little bit more on Evers' side than not. But history also tells us that in Wisconsin, there are few safe bets anymore in big November elections. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Should Tony Evers seek a third term? Here are pluses and minuses
