Richard Rubin

The Senate is not going to just take this and rubber stamp it. The Senate's got its own ideas, its own personalities, its own factions, its own divides, its own priorities. And that's really the next phase of what happened. And so as important as this week is, it is just that step. And then the Senate will have its say.

It matters because it's the government pulling back a little bit on the protections it provides for low-income people and the government pulling back on taxes across the board, both, you know, for middle-income households like we've talked about and people at the top who get to continue having the tax cuts they've been having.

It matters because it's the government pulling back a little bit on the protections it provides for low-income people and the government pulling back on taxes across the board, both, you know, for middle-income households like we've talked about and people at the top who get to continue having the tax cuts they've been having.

It matters because it's the government pulling back a little bit on the protections it provides for low-income people and the government pulling back on taxes across the board, both, you know, for middle-income households like we've talked about and people at the top who get to continue having the tax cuts they've been having.

The last time that Republicans really made a dent in these sort of entitlement mandatory programs was nearly 30 years ago. And so a lot has happened since then. And that, I think, is a real signal that there's a willingness and an interest to do those kinds of changes. It's a signal of how far Republicans can be willing to go on the spending side.

The last time that Republicans really made a dent in these sort of entitlement mandatory programs was nearly 30 years ago. And so a lot has happened since then. And that, I think, is a real signal that there's a willingness and an interest to do those kinds of changes. It's a signal of how far Republicans can be willing to go on the spending side.

The last time that Republicans really made a dent in these sort of entitlement mandatory programs was nearly 30 years ago. And so a lot has happened since then. And that, I think, is a real signal that there's a willingness and an interest to do those kinds of changes. It's a signal of how far Republicans can be willing to go on the spending side.

The changes in Medicaid, in nutrition assistance, in agriculture, whatever those end up being, whatever those spending changes end up being, they're a sign of what the Republican Party itself is capable of doing. This is not Republicans pressuring a Democratic president into accepting things. This is

The changes in Medicaid, in nutrition assistance, in agriculture, whatever those end up being, whatever those spending changes end up being, they're a sign of what the Republican Party itself is capable of doing. This is not Republicans pressuring a Democratic president into accepting things. This is

The changes in Medicaid, in nutrition assistance, in agriculture, whatever those end up being, whatever those spending changes end up being, they're a sign of what the Republican Party itself is capable of doing. This is not Republicans pressuring a Democratic president into accepting things. This is

the purest distillation of what this Republican Party at this moment with these slim majorities can produce.

the purest distillation of what this Republican Party at this moment with these slim majorities can produce.

the purest distillation of what this Republican Party at this moment with these slim majorities can produce.

Part of that report clearly said, look, we're concerned that the proposals that are coming out of this Congress and administration does not make significant, meaningful changes.

Part of that report clearly said, look, we're concerned that the proposals that are coming out of this Congress and administration does not make significant, meaningful changes.

Part of that report clearly said, look, we're concerned that the proposals that are coming out of this Congress and administration does not make significant, meaningful changes.

The concern is that the more the U.S. government is borrowing, it'll be harder to have investment capital for new factories, new homes, new whatever. And it can drive up interest rates. And those interest rates obviously go into what you're paying on credit cards and mortgages and those kinds of things.

The concern is that the more the U.S. government is borrowing, it'll be harder to have investment capital for new factories, new homes, new whatever. And it can drive up interest rates. And those interest rates obviously go into what you're paying on credit cards and mortgages and those kinds of things.

The concern is that the more the U.S. government is borrowing, it'll be harder to have investment capital for new factories, new homes, new whatever. And it can drive up interest rates. And those interest rates obviously go into what you're paying on credit cards and mortgages and those kinds of things.

And they would also argue that other parts of the Trump agenda, the deregulation, oil and gas production, are also going to generate growth. And they're saying, basically, if you take all of that growth, the growth caused by this bill and the growth that will happen outside this bill, that will increase the economy so much, then throw off enough revenue and basically cover the cost.