While President Donald Trump has often floated the notion of passing a balanced budget during his second term, his officially-named "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" doesn't come close. Rather than decreasing the federal budget, the legislation increases it, calling for cuts of $1.5 trillion in spending over 10 years vs. the $2 trillion in cuts needed in one year to balance the budget.
Stay with me, here: I'm not dumping on Trump; I'm laying out the facts as they exist.
Likely as a direct result of the above reality, an idea is gaining momentum among Congressional Republicans that would make it easier for Trump to directly return excess funds (assuming any exist) to the U.S. Treasury without the approval of Congress.
Just the News reported on Monday that it has obtained text of the language currently in circulation among Republican lawmakers, which reads:
For the purpose of this legislation and all prior federal funding authorizations and appropriations, the executive branch is hereby authorized to return to the Treasury any unspent monies for appropriations and authorizations if it can certify it has fully met the requirements and intent that Congress set for those expenditures.
Nothing in this legislation shall be construed to subjecate [sic] or override the Article 1 powers of the House and Senate but rather the legislative branch wishes to exercise those powers to give a president a simple and common sense vehicle to reward taxpayers with returned funds for deficit and debt reduction should his or her administration fly deliver on the intent and demands of Congress with a more efficient cost than estimated in legislation.
The above is yet another example of "Why wouldn't any lawmaker support making it easier for the executive branch to, in effect, return taxpayer money to the Treasury for hopefully better purposes?"
OK, lemme rephrase the above:
"Why wouldn't any Republican lawmaker support making it easier for the executive branch to, in effect, return taxpayer money to the Treasury for hopefully better purposes?"
Here's more:
Thus far, the measure appears to have the interest of the executive branch and lawmakers in at least one chamber of Congress. Speaking on the "John Solomon Reports" podcast last week, Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, said that “[i]t does appeal to me.”
He observed that such an executive determination and the process for it would likely be the subject of debate, but added “we're always going to have those kind of debates. The fact the other side of the coin, where, at the end of the year, the end of the budget cycle, you have federal agencies that are [in a] use it or lose it situation… has created a lot of waste.”
Moore warned:
We are the legislative branch controlling the purse, telling the executive branch, hey, you've got some more authority here. We have given the executive branch far more authority on regulation, regulatory work than we should have ever done. This one, though, seems to make sense a lot more, and I think it gained some support.
Trump Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair said on the "Just the News, No Noise" show last week:
Look, the White House has been on the front lines of reducing spending. It is the President who put DOGE in place to start rooting out the waste, fraud and abuse.
It is the President who has been the boldest president in American history to go after the waste and the corruption and the misuse of taxpayer dollars and the agencies in the executive branch.
So we're doing our part, and we are pushing Congress to do more. Look, we're going to look at that language. I think it is floating around. But what's most important, again, this is just the first step in a multi-step process.
Are they? Are Trump and Congressional Republicans really doing their part in pursuit of a balanced budget? The answer is worthy of debate.
ALSO CHECK OUT: Herding Cats, Moving Mountains, and Passing the 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
Speaker Mike Johnson Describes 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' As Trump Agenda 'on Steroids'
Unlike the GOP, the Democrat Party learned long ago to take what they can get when they can get it, and while whatever it is might not be enough in their eyes, they'll come back later and take more — rather than adopt the obvious approach of some Republican lawmakers who continue to cling to the "If I can't get everything I want, I'm going to vote 'no'" approach.
How's that all worked out in the past?
Perhaps the Trump White House is well aware of the above. This new proposal would help the president whittle away at the deficit, while a minority of self-righteous Republican lawmakers continue to tilt at windmills.
