Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is advisory only and ends July 4th - Can't stop funding from Congress - $2 trillion of saving is impossible - and a president can't close departments
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency can’t be a body with real teeth without Congress’s support which Trump is highly unlikely to ever get. Also, it can’t be a body with real teeth because if it was Elon Musk couldn’t lead it.
Elon Musk won’t have any official position confirmed by Senate because if he did then he’d need to put SpaceX into a blind trust under Government ethics rules. That is because it depends on government contracts from NASA and the Ministry of Defence. There is no way Elon Musk would let anyone else call the shots at SpaceX as is needed for a blind trust. So this is not going to happen.
As for using Congress to shut down or drastically trim major organizations like the EPA, FDA, CDC etc, this is simply impossible. It took nearly 20 years to end the Board of Tea Examiners.
The Democrats with 47 seats can easily filibuster any legislation to try to remove major boards - and the House with only a majority of 2 to 4 seats has no chance of passing major legislation like that either because there would be sure to be far more than 4 house Republicans opposed to any such plan.
See:
What could Musk realistically do - nothing like $2 trillion - but the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found $70 billion a year he can potentially trim with help from Congress without any major changes
First, Musk claims to be able to eliminate $2 trillion. But most of this isn’t in control of the executive. The main things Trump can do is to submit new budgets to Congress for discretionary funding.
There are three components, mandatory, discretionary and interest.
Mandatory - Congress set the amount to spend when the law was passed and can only be changed by changing the law, e.g. Social Security and Medicare
Discretionary - Congress allocates funding every year, e.g. USAID
So it has to be spent on something.
Trump can’t change the mandatory funding unless Congress changes the laws that set that funding up. He can’t do anything about the interest. So that leaves the discretionary funding. That is renewed every year but can be fillibustered and when that happens the last year’s funding must be used until it’s resolved.
The president does have some flexibility for some of the mandatory funding by rule making. For instance he can change eligibility criteria for SNAP food stamps, student debt forgiveness, or emergency agricultural subsidies. Presidents often overspend on such things over the original intent of Congress, and the Committee for a Responsible Budget says that Congress could save $80 billion in 10 years or $8 billion a year by restricting the president's power to overspend.
The Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, not the executive branch, yet the past two Presidents have increased spending on student loans, farm subsidies, and SNAP (“food stamps”) in ways that appear well in excess of legislative intent. Requiring that future actions in these areas be budget neutral would save $80 billion relative to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline and has the potential to save much more, depending on actual presidential actions.
So by cutting this overspending, Trump could save $8 billion a year or $22 million a day, if that's politically acceptable to him. I’m not sure how easy those are to do. They are things some people would miss, e.g. reducing student loan forgiveness, but are within control of the president and he could look at them and see if any of them are politically acceptible.
But that's about it. The rest has to be spent.
Then, there are some things he can save with the help of Congress. He could save $700 billion in a decade, or $70 billion a year, a little under $200 million a day if he followed all the recommendations of the Committee for a Responsible Budget which they say has bipartisan support and could be passed in Congress. See: $700 Billion of Easy Deficit Reduction
But this is nowhere near what Trump wants to achieve.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Why Trump can make only minor reductions in expenses without Congress:
- only $8 billion savings in easy control of the president
Trump has some ability to remove funding from programs he doesn't like and can of course eliminate fraud and wastage.
However all the money freed up in this way has to be spent on the same program he freed it from.
He can only reduce funding after doing this with support from Congress
Mandatory funding: Fixed amount set in law
- Can be reduced by simple majority in both chambers (reconciliation) but
- tend to be popular with significant Republican support
Discretionary funding: Must be renewed every year
- Reductions can be stopped by Democrat filibuster in Senate
- Previous year's funding used if filibustered
Net interest: 2/3 of the interest is paid to Americans, e.g. pension funds
By impoundment control act,
- president has to spend all this money
~0.13% of savings by executive without Congress
Many other ways to balance budget in 2030s:
- raise retirement age
- increase immigration (including young entrepreneurs like Musk was)
- save on budget
- save on tax fraud
- VAT
In 2020s priority is to boost economy which needs funding.
. File:2023-federal-budget-breakdown.png - Wikimedia Commons
This is a breakdown of the owners of the public debt. As you see, 2/3 of the interest goes straight into the US economy:
Discretionary spending also IS in the control of Congress which works out how much to spend on these areas every year in the yearly budgets.
Trump can’t change these directly but he can suggest budgets to Congress for their yearly budget discussions.
Half of this consists of Defence, which he plans to increase:
File:Discretionary Spending 2019 Budget.jpg - Wikipedia
If he reduces defence spending he has $679 billion there that he could reduce to some extent. But many expect him to increase defence spending. That leaves the $626 billion in non defence spending (just rounding to the nearest billion of the %s of the 2023 budget)
Trump oversaw a big increase in defense spending in his first term. But it’s not certain it will increase in this term.
Whereas the right once almost uniformly supported higher military spending, it’s now split into three main camps, he argued.
The first is traditional defense hawks, such as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who favor a more assertive military and funding to support one. The second is budget hawks, like the House Freedom Caucus, who are most concerned with bloated government spending and would in some cases favor cuts.
And the third is the “America First” wing of the Republican Party, such as Trump’s final acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, who are skeptical that America’s military needs to maintain so many missions around the world, and may also support cuts.
. What a second Trump presidency could mean for the defense budget
Mandatory funding can be changed in a simple majority in both chambers - but only one big bill at a time for all the changes
The mandatory funding is authorized by various bills through annual amounts. Congress can change them all in one big bill passed under the process of budget reconciliation which needs just a simple majority in both houses.
But this is hard to do because they are popular programs that are hard to change significantly.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
All except Social Security can be changed in a big budget bill with a simple majority in both chambers (reconciliation)
But all are popular programs that centrist Republicans are reluctant to cut significantly
Social Security can be filibustered.
File:Mandatory Spending.jpg - Wikipedia
See also United States federal budget - Wikipedia
By the Byrd rule, the Republicans can't change Social Security through Reconciliation.
This means the Democrats can filibuster any changes in Social Security payments.
Screenshot from: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/rl/rl30862 The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule” (Congressional Research Service)
As for the other ones, they are all popular programs that Republicans are reluctant to cut. Many Republicans do think that shrinking Medicaid will make it a better program - though the arguments they use are not very sound scientifically. They look at evidence that supports their view and not the evidence against it.
Anyway that's what they think. But getting it across the line is far harder than proposing ideas because a few moderate Republicans are sure to push back.
Then the actions of DOGE have alienated just about all the moderate Democrats they usually count on for budget bills, so they will have to try to pass it themselves and that’s likely to be hard to do as the Republican party is very divided.
Any changes in discretionary funding needs bipartisan support - because it can be filibustered unlike mandatory funding changes - this is why haggling often leads to government shutdowns
A president can only suggest budgets not set them. Congress finds the money. And HHS can't move it to another program as the funding is earmarked for Head Start.
Changes in discretionary funding needs bipartisan support unless a party has a filibuster proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate as well as a majority in the House. If they can't achieve this you get a government shutdown which can be averted by a continuing resolution that continues the same funding as the previous year.
These bills can be filibustered, and so Democrats with a 47 seat minority in the Senate can stop them. Needs only 41 to stop a bill using a filibuster.
So any change in the funding level of Head Start needs at least 7 Democrat senators to support it.
Also Trump has only a 3 seat majority in the House.
Many Republican moderates would surely join the Democrats in voting against any attempt to remove Head Start, and there are around 20 Freedom Caucus MAGA extremists who just cause chaos deliberately.
So the Republicans likely need Democrat votes in the House too for any of these bills as well as in the Senate.
The House and Senate typically haggle over the budgets and if they can't agree a budget then that is when you get government shutdowns. They can do a continuing resolution as a stopgap which just continues the budget for the previous year into the next year as they haggle over details of the new budget.
Explanation in Wikipedia.
QUOTE STARTS
Under the United States budget process established in 1921, the US government is funded by twelve appropriations bills that are formed as a response to the presidential budget request submitted to Congress in the first few months of the previous calendar year. The various legislators in the two chambers of Congress negotiate over the precise details of the various appropriations bills. In some politically contentious years when these negotiation processes deadlock, the Legislative Branch passes a continuing resolution that essentially extends the current funding levels into the new fiscal year until a budget can be agreed upon by a majority of both houses and signed into law by the President of the United States. Supplemental appropriations bills can provide additional appropriations for emergencies and other matters.
These appropriations bills are classified as discretionary spending, and make up around 22% of federal expenditures. The remainder is classified as mandatory spending, which includes programs such as Social Security and Medicare, as well as interest on debt.[2]
This gives a short intro to the filibuster and how that is used to stop bills in Congress but expect you know it.
. Understanding Political Gridlock: Causes and Solutions
I wondered if it could be bypassed by reconciliation which allows a change with only a simple majority in the Senate.
But no. Reconciliation is not permitted for discretionary funding only mandatory funding.|
QUOTE STARTS
The Congressional Budget Act limits the use of the reconciliation process. Reconciliation instructions can be given for three specific purposes: to make changes in the statutory debt limit, to make changes in revenues, and to make changes in direct (mandatory) spending, or any combination of the three. Discretionary spending subject to the regular appropriations process—such as annual funding for the Departments of Education and Defense—cannot be included in the reconciliation process.1
Mandatory funding could be changed with a simple majority in House and Senate. But generally they are things that are hard to change.
For instance, Trump could reverse the Inflation reduction act with reconciliation if he could get almost all the House Republicans and all except 3 fo the Senators to vote to remove it. But he is not going to be able to do that because many Republican states benefit from it.
Discretionary funding even though it has to be allocated every year is better protected and can only be changed with Democrat support in the Senate.
More on why Elon Musk can’t have official positions - because he’d have to put SpaceX into a blind trust for someone else to manage
With Elon Musk it's not a cabinet position. He would be head of a newly invented Department of Government efficiency which would only operate initially through to July 4th, set up by the president and more advisory than anything no actual teeth. So a president can set up something like that without any need for confirmation from the Senate.
Musk wouldn't want to have a government position because he'd have to divest his SpaceX / Tesla holdings or put them in trust because of conflicts of interest.
QUOTE STARTS
Instead, it seemed more plausible that Musk would be appointed to a blue-ribbon committee where he would still have enormous access, but he would not be subject to government ethics rules, which would require him to divest or put assets in a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest between his private business interests and government role.
. Trump’s allies are already jockeying for high-powered spots in his administration | CNN Politics
So in short, the Senate can boot out the Secretary of Defence by just not letting him take office and as long as there are 5 object he's had it. There are lots of moderate Republican Senators there. They will take a lot of convincing that he is up to the job.
Elon Musk's role is informal and advisory and he'll have no real power, just reporting to the president and Trump can do that without any problems without authority of Congress and Elon Musk wouldn't want a more official job anyway because by government ethics rules he'd have to hand control of SpaceX and Tesla over to someone else who he can't consult with for the duration of the job (a blind trust). He obviously won't want that so that's impossible.
He would have to do that because in a more official post, he'd be able to make decisions that would impact on SpaceX and Tesla and which he could exploit if he continued to have direct control of SpaceX and Tesla.
QUOTE STARTS
In some cases, the same experience that qualifies an individual for a role may create potential conflicts of interest. Legislators with experience in an industry are more likely to be given committee assignments involving the regulation of that industry. However, that experience may be tied to ongoing personal financial interests that would require recusal from participating in those matters. Some legislators may use blind trusts in an attempt to ethically balance private interests with public duties.
In a blind trust, an individual places assets that could otherwise create conflicts of interest into an asset vehicle ("trust"). Control over the trust and its assets are given to an independent trustee, who may buy and sell assets without the knowledge or consent of the beneficiary ("blind"). In theory, a public official with a blind trust would be immunized from potential conflicts stemming from the assets held in trust because the legislator-beneficiary would have no knowledge of the impact of official actions on the personal financial interests.
So this means someone else would have to run Tesla and SpaceX and make all the decisions about them and Elon Musk would only know about what is going on from the news. He couldn't be involved in the design of the rockets, or in deciding which programs to go ahead with or stop or which government contracts to bid for or anything.
This is obviously impossible for Elon Musk so this type of post is out of his reach.
Trump will also have the same problem of the first term of a revolving door presidency - Elon Musk won’t be Trump’s poodle for instance
Few people will be able to stand being absolutely loyal to Trump for 4 years. The most obvious split is with Musk. There is no way Musk will submit to be Trump's poodle. As the world's wealthiest man and someone larger than life with strong and often bizarre and eccentric views on numerous things it is not remotely credible that he will remain aligned with Trump for long on much.
That is a prediction of John Ryley, former head of Sky News. Asked to comment on the BBC he said
QUOTE STARTS
I think what you should remember is that Musk is a big character. And when you have two big characters together they don't always agree. So I think this will end in tears.
And last month when Trump was interviewed by Joe Rogan the podcast host he said the biggest mistake he made of his presidency is who he appointed at the start. He said there were bad people and there were disloyal people.
He will want all the people he appoints for the next 4 weeks, 74 days, to be ultra loyal. Musk probably won't be ultraloyal He is his own boss, he is a a very wealthy guy, richest guy on the planet. He is not going to take what Trump says always to heart. And he will be a troublemaker. And I thought the comparison you made earlier with Isambel Kingdom Brunel, great Victorian innovater. He was a very difficult guy as well. And I think Musk is probably quite a difficult guy.
2:26 into US Election 2024 - US Election 2024
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Elon Musk won’t be Trump’s poodle. Trump with Patton, a Goldendoodle cross between poodle and golden retriever.
only president never to have a pet.
Photo of Patton from: Trump's First Dog $PATTON (@patton_on_sol) on X
at one point there seemed to be some potential for him to choose Patton as a pet but he never did.
Donald Trump is the only president never to have a pet. The Trump family are not known to have any pets.
. United States presidential pets - Wikipedia
However at one point there was hope he might adopt Patton a Goldendoodle - Wikipedia
So I thought it was a good graphic to use to illustrate the obvious - that Elon Musk won’t be Trump’s poodle.
When Musk finds he can't fire people and hire their favourites e.g. for the head of the NIH or CDC etc. they will likely rebel maybe resign, maybe be fired.
I don't think Musk has a clue about this, one of the disadvantages of being so wealthy. It is so easy to surround himself with an echo chamber of people who tell him how great he is. It takes a lot of humility to avoid that trap.
Incidentaly for anyone who worries, Elon Musk can’t run for US president as he wasn’t born in the USA.
The good news is the US democracy is very strong and the various departments are self-operating and it can continue through all sorts of issues.
It is hard to know with Trump if he really doesn’t know or he expects them to fail. He has only given Elon Musk through to July 4th. Though he says he is confident they will succeed.
But for Elon Musk then for sure he has no idea of the problems involved. He is very naive and doesn’t listen to people who warn him of potential blunders.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC TRUMP VANCE TRANSITION
November 12, 2024-
STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
I am pleased to announce that the Great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency ("DOGE"). Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies - Essential to the "Save America" Movement. "This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in Government waste, which is a lot of people!" stated Mr. Musk.
It will become, potentially, "The Manhattan Project" of our time. Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of "DOGE" for a very long time. To drive this kind of drastic change, the Department of Government Efficiency will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before.
I look forward to Elon and Vivek making changes to the Federal Bureaucracy with an eye on efficiency and, at the same time, making life better for all Americans. Importantly, we will drive out the massive waste and fraud which exists throughout our annual $6.5 Trillion Dollars of Government Spending. They will work together to liberate our Economy, and make the U.S. Government accountable to "WE THE PEOPLE." Their work will conclude no later than July 4, 2026-A smaller Government, with more efficiency and less bureaucracy, will be the perfect gift to America on the 250th Anniversary of The Declaration of Independence. I am confident they will succeed!
What about just not spending the money - impoundment - requires Congress to remove the 1974 impoundment control bill - not credible - or Trump to defy Congress - Supreme Court expected to rule against him
Short summary:
impoundment was made illegal in 1974, no way Congress would change that because it would surrender their own right to decide budgets, moderate Republicans couldn’t vote for that.
Trump could illegally impound funds and hope the Supreme Court would rule that the law is unconstitutional
but if anything they moved in the opposite direction with the Chevron case ruling in favour of LESS independence of the president from Congress
[the Supreme Court is NOT MAGA and has often ruled against Trump]
Vought thinks Trump could defund agencies by holding back money he is legally required to spend by Congress.
That is called illegal impoundment. He did it with Vought in his first term when he held back money owing to Ukraine temporarily. What he did was illegal and he was forced to send the money to Ukraine.
Allegedly he combined that with a threat to Zelensky which is one of the things lead to his first impeachment.
So, impoundment is when the president refuses to use the money that has been allocated to spend on various things and just holds it back unspent.
The impoundment bill limits what a president can do in that way. He has to ask Congress for permission to hold back funding and Congress has 45 days to reply and if it ignores the request then he can't impound the funds.
This bill was passed in 1974 after then president Nixon refused to spend lots of funding that was allocated by Congress.
. Impoundment of appropriated funds - Wikipedia
So then illegal impoundment is when the president refuses to spend the money even though Congress has also refused his request to impound it or he never asked Congress for permission.
With the Ukraine funding he just tried to block the funds.
This time around he wants to go further and take back the power of unlimited impeachment as it was under Nixon before the impoundement bill. There are two ways to do it.
He could ask Congress to reverse the 1974 bill, remove it.
- but he only has a majority 220 : 215 in the House and 53 : 47 in the Senate.
- at least some moderate Republicans will not want to give the president unlimited power to hold back funds that they have allocated for various things.
- Democrats can stop it in the Senate with a 41 seat fillibuster
It’s likely to fail in both House and Senate because legislators would see it as weakening Congress too much. Legislators unlike Trump have a longer term view.
It would mean ANY president could refuse to spend money that Congress allocates for projects the legislators may be very keen on. Legislators may be in Congress for the rest of their professional lives.
He could just defy Congress and ignore the bill - and then it would go through the courts up to the Supreme Court.
Trump might mistakenly think the Supreme Court would want to give the president more power simply because he appointed several of them. But it doesn't work like that. He has the worst case of any president since 1937
The Supreme Court shifted the other way, in the direction of giving the president less power, with its Chevron decision - saying that they did not think that the Executive should have the power to interpret things as they please when a bill is ambiguous.
See:
In that decision, Supreme Court said interpretation was a role for Congress or the Judiciary - the president can suggest interpretations but not decide them. They said past decisions won't be affected for the most part - but in the future if the president has some novel interpretation of the law that this is up to the justices not the president to decide.
QUOTE STARTS
There will be obstacles. It does not take a leap of faith to guess that even many Republican lawmakers may not want to cede the power of the purse back to the White House.
Trump might think he’ll fare well challenging impoundment at the Supreme Court, which now leans to the right and is skeptical of the federal bureaucracy. The court recently curtailed the power of agencies to interpret statutes passed by Congress. That could also be read as a warning against executive overreach.
All that makes it unlikely that they give the president the right to defy Congress on impoundment.
Incidentally the same article says that Ramaswamy wants to close down the FBI of all things.
CNN says that "That would be an interesting political argument to watch unfold after Republicans complained that Democrats wanted to defund the police."
QUOTE STATS
Ramaswamy, citing his new view of a law passed in 1977 and signed by then-President Jimmy Carter that references a president’s authority to determine changes to agencies, would also obliterate the FBI, the Department of Education and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, among others. It’s a heterodox view of the scope of presidential power, to say the least.
It’s not at all clear that Trump shares Ramaswamy’s view of nixing all of these agencies. Even if he did, there would be lawsuits if Trump took Ramaswamy’s advice to simply end the FBI. That would be an interesting political argument to watch unfold after Republicans complained that Democrats wanted to defund the police.
This is the big-think mindset Ramaswamy could bring to DOGE. Trump clearly wants big ideas as he tries to reimagine the US government.
If Trump really does try to do these things - even though he surely fails - this is hardly going to get the Republican party many votes.
It sounds to me like a sure fire way to lose the House and Senate in the mid terms?
And the legislators in the House especially - any in marginal seats - they only have two years before they could be thrown out due to this sort of thing.
Also, there are many Senators also that are willing to stand up to Trump.
Then, withTrump as a president who has already been impeached twice and the second time convicted by 7 of his own senators it's not impossible he is impeached again.
Even his own party would surely impeach him if he did something very illegal, or something that though not illegal they see as extreme misconduct.
Another way it could happen is if the Democrats gain control of the House and Senate in 2026 they could start impeachment proceedings and bring them to the Senate. As they did in 2020.
If he does something that is as out there as trying to close down the FBI by impounding the funds for it or some other popular and widely supported department - then I can imagine even his own party wanting to impeach him for misconduct.
Also such presidential overreach would surely stopped in the courts.
It looks as if the US Constitution is going to be tested in many novel ways but it is a very well designed robust Constitution.
UPDATE - difficulty getting a budget together without Democrat support
As of early February 2025, Republicans are in a bit of a bind. Their problem is they want to extend Trump's tax cuts which expire at the end of 2025. But this would cost $4.2 trillion in the next decade and add $4.6 trillion to the national debt in the next decade.
So they are looking for things to cut to compensate for that $4.2 trillion increase..
QUOTE STARTS
As Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy expire this year, one of his first orders of business as president is to order an extension. Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) effectively allowed the ultra-wealthy to hoard USD 2 trillion in wealth. The TCJA lowered the corporate tax rate and the personal tax rate for those making over USD 500,000 per year, and weakened the estate tax. The moves effectively added USD 2 trillion to the federal budget deficit as the government received far less money in taxes.
These proposed extensions to the TCJA will once again mostly benefit the wealthy. According to estimates by the US Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis, under a full extension of the expiring individual and estate tax provisions of the TCJA, the largest tax cuts would go to the wealthiest families. The top 0.1% of earners would receive a tax cut of around USD 314,000, the total cost of these cuts amounting to USD 4.2 trillion from 2026 and 2035.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that extending the TCJA would add USD 4.6 trillion to the US government’s federal deficit.
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/01/24/trumps-tax-cuts-on-wealthy-may-increase-the-same-budget-deficit-he-seeks-to-reduce/
One of the top targets is Medicaid which they could shrink by changing eligibility criteria.
Many Republicans think that shrinking Medicaid will make it a better program - though the arguments they use are not very sound scientifically. They look at evidence that supports their view that Americans will remain healthy without Medicaid - and not the evidence against it.
QUOTE STARTS
Archambault and others place a lot of value on the Oregon experiment because it's the only randomized study (the gold standard in research) of the impacts of Medicaid. In 2008, Oregon used a lottery to expand its Medicaid program, which allowed researchers to compare outcomes after two years for people who received Medicaid and those who didn’t.
They found that people on Medicaid were more likely than those without health insurance to get preventive care and to report being in better health. Those on Medicaid were also less likely to be depressed or get hit with big medical bills. But the researchers turned up no differences between the two groups on three specific measures of physical health: cholesterol levels, blood pressure and keeping diabetes under control.
https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/why-many-republicans-think-shrinking-medicaid-will-make-it-better
There reporting being in better health, not hit with big medical bills and not depressed are reasons to say it's working. But Republicans focus on the no change in cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and control of diabetes to say it's not working.
Anyway that's what they think.
So they want to cut it, by reducing eligilbility or by caps of some kind - but getting ideas like that across the line is far harder than proposing ideas because a few moderate Republicans are sure to push back.
QUOTE STARTS
Even many Republicans eager to cut Medicaid believe it will be difficult to make sizable changes to the program in 2025, despite full control of Congress and the White House.
Democrats are expected to oppose any Medicaid reductions, and hospitals have historically done the same because Medicaid payments help keep the lights on. Some congressional Republicans are already pushing back.
“It's very easy to propose these fixes. It is very hard to get them passed,” said Tom Scully, whose efforts to reform Medicaid date back 35 years.
https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/why-many-republicans-think-shrinking-medicaid-will-make-it-better
This is from their link for: Some congressional Republicans are already pushing back.
QUOTE STARTS
Centrists conveyed to leaders in the meeting that they needed to “learn the lessons” from the last GOP attempt to undercut the Affordable Care Act in 2017, according to one of the Republicans. The party went on to lose more than 40 House seats in the 2018 midterms.
Instead, they argued, Republicans needed to embrace the GOP’s role as the working class party. Leaders would counter that message by slashing programs working Americans rely on, they said. GOP lawmakers in the room included Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Young Kim (Calif.), David Valadao (Calif.), Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.), Tom Barrett (Mich.) and Don Bacon (Neb.).
And the group asserted that Republicans need to protect more than just Obamacare. A large swath of the GOP is discussing significant spending cuts, including to social safety net programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. Centrists warned their colleagues not to pursue deep cuts to those programs, which benefit low-income Americans, according to the four Republicans.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/01/23/congress/gop-centrists-defend-obamacare-00200287
So then there's the question of how to get all this across with such a narrow margin.
Actions by DOGE in the last few weeks alienated just about all the House Democrats.
So Republicans will have to try to get a reconciliation bill across the line probably without any Democrat support.
Then the government will shut down on March 14th unless they do a continuing resolution. But there are around 30 Republicans who will never vote to continue funding the government. So they have to rely on Democrats to keep the government going and this time the Democrats are sure to use this as leverage to try to do something about DOGE and about protecting their priorities.
Republicans havee two ideas here
1, put everything in one big bill - that way then they hope that Republicans will vote for a bill because of the positive things for them in it even with things they don't like. That is what the House wants.
2. pass a separate bill early with all the things that are easy to pass to get an early win and leave the rest for later. That's what the Senate wants.
QUOTE House Republicans have been at odds with their Senate colleagues, preferring to pass one major bill that also includes extending tax cuts enacted during Mr. Trump's first term and potentially a debt ceiling suspension. Senate Republicans believe the tax legislation should be part of a second bill. But House Republicans believe putting everything into one bill gives it the best chance of passing their divided conference.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-gop-releases-budget-plan-lindsey-graham/
Later this year there's the debt ceiling, and dozens of Republicans are not going to vote for increasing the debt so the Democrats are needed to pass that one too, so that's more leverage for them.
QUOTE STARTS
Even many Republicans eager to cut Medicaid believe it will be difficult to make sizable changes to the program in 2025, despite full control of Congress and the White House.
Democrats are expected to oppose any Medicaid reductions, and hospitals have historically done the same because Medicaid payments help keep the lights on. Some congressional Republicans are already pushing back.
“It's very easy to propose these fixes. It is very hard to get them passed,” said Tom Scully, whose efforts to reform Medicaid date back 35 years.
https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/why-many-republicans-think-shrinking-medicaid-will-make-it-better
This is from the link for: Some congressional Republicans are already pushing back.
QUOTE STARTS
Centrists conveyed to leaders in the meeting that they needed to “learn the lessons” from the last GOP attempt to undercut the Affordable Care Act in 2017, according to one of the Republicans. The party went on to lose more than 40 House seats in the 2018 midterms.
Instead, they argued, Republicans needed to embrace the GOP’s role as the working class party. Leaders would counter that message by slashing programs working Americans rely on, they said. GOP lawmakers in the room included Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Young Kim (Calif.), David Valadao (Calif.), Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.), Tom Barrett (Mich.) and Don Bacon (Neb.).
And the group asserted that Republicans need to protect more than just Obamacare. A large swath of the GOP is discussing significant spending cuts, including to social safety net programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. Centrists warned their colleagues not to pursue deep cuts to those programs, which benefit low-income Americans, according to the four Republicans.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/01/23/congress/gop-centrists-defend-obamacare-00200287
The executive orders and shut-down of USAID and so on have alienated moderate Democrats so they are not likely to support Republicans to help the bill cross the line.
QUOTE
House Republicans have been at odds with their Senate colleagues, preferring to pass one major bill that also includes extending tax cuts enacted during Mr. Trump's first term and potentially a debt ceiling suspension. Senate Republicans believe the tax legislation should be part of a second bill. But House Republicans believe putting everything into one bill gives it the best chance of passing their divided conference.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-gop-releases-budget-plan-lindsey-graham/
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.