WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Senate Republicans will ask their chamber’s nonpartisan referee this week to weigh in on a controversial plan to make President Donald Trump’s expiring 2017 tax cuts permanent, which critics say could lead to trillions of dollars in additional debt.
It is not clear whether the Senate parliamentarian will go along with the request, which would make it easier for Republicans to pass Trump’s ambitious package of tax cuts and spending hikes for border security and the military through a closely divided Congress.
To bypass Democratic opposition, Republicans are relying on a complex budget process that requires them to meet a thicket of conditions — including one requirement that they must not increase budget deficits beyond a 10-year window. Lawmakers would violate that condition under current rules by making the 2017 tax cuts permanent before they expire at the end of this year.
Senate Republicans are expected to ask parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough to overlook those losses, expected to be $4.6 trillion over the next 10 years, on the grounds that they are just extending tax policies already in place.
That plan has staunch backing from Trump, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, House Speaker Mike Johnson, top Republicans on tax policy and business lobbyists.
Independent analysts and some fiscal hawks in Congress warn that the unprecedented approach could make the $36.6 trillion U.S. debt spiral out of control in coming decades.
Republicans hold a narrow 53-47 majority in the Senate, which means they need Democratic support to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary for most legislation. But Democrats vehemently oppose the Trump agenda as a plan to benefit the wealthy.
“Republicans love to talk about fiscal responsibility — until they’re the ones in charge,” Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon said in a statement.
If MacDonough opposes the Republican plan, lawmakers could opt to extend the Trump tax cuts for another 10 years, or try to overrule her and forge ahead anyhow.
Senate Republicans will have to reconcile any plan they manage to pass with a dramatically different version that has already passed the House of Representatives.
(Reporting by David Morgan; editing by Andy Sullivan and Shri Navaratnam)
Comments