#spendingbill

So, Paxton vs Free Speech Coalition and Birthright Citizenship + National Injunction cases will be settled most certainly tomorrow.

Keep an eye and ear out.

------

Now onto the Spending Bill news!

Here is a combined summary of all the updates from the Politico articles I checked:

The Republican-led "megabill" (also referred to as the "One Big Beautiful Bill") is facing numerous challenges and undergoing significant revisions due to rulings by Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and internal disagreements within the GOP. Republicans are pushing to pass this comprehensive domestic policy bill—which includes tax, defense, energy, immigration, and health care provisions—before a self-imposed July 4 deadline, using the budget reconciliation process to bypass a Democratic filibuster.

Key Challenges and Parliamentarian Rulings:

Medicaid Provisions: The parliamentarian has dealt a major blow to the GOP's health care plans by ruling that several key Medicaid provisions cannot pass with a simple majority. This includes a plan to reduce Medicaid costs by cracking down on state provider taxes, which was expected to generate substantial savings, and proposals to exclude undocumented residents from Medicaid. These rulings have created an estimated $250 billion budgetary shortfall for Republicans.

Civil Service and Pension Reform: Initial proposals to restructure the federal workforce, such as giving federal employees an "at-will" designation and billing unions for official activities, were ruled out of order by the parliamentarian. Republicans are now exploring changes to their pension reform plan, proposing to increase federal employees' retirement contributions to 15.6 percent (from 9.4 percent) to help fund the megabill, though members of Congress, their staff, and federal law enforcement would be exempt. Democrats and unions strongly oppose these changes.

CFPB Funding: Senate Banking Republicans are proposing to cap the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding at 6.5 percent of the Federal Reserve's operating budget, a reduction from the current 12 percent. An initial attempt to eliminate CFPB funding entirely was deemed ineligible. This new proposal awaits parliamentarian approval.

AI Moratorium: The parliamentarian has requested Senator Ted Cruz rewrite a proposed 10-year moratorium on enforcing state artificial intelligence (AI) laws, clarifying its scope of funding. While the measure is tied to a new $500 million fund for AI infrastructure, concerns remain that it could implicitly affect the entire $42 billion broadband program. The AI moratorium has also created divisions within the Republican party.

"Revenge Tax": Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has asked lawmakers to remove a projected $52 billion "revenge tax" from the megabill, stating it is no longer necessary due to a "new understanding" with other developed countries regarding a global tax agreement, where central taxes will not apply to U.S. companies.

Overruling Parliamentarian: Despite calls from some conservative Republicans to do so, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has stated that the Senate will not move to overrule Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, emphasizing the importance of preserving Senate norms.

Approved Provisions:

SNAP Plan: The parliamentarian has approved a modified version of the Republican plan to shift some costs of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) onto states. This is a significant win for Republicans, as it allows them to maintain a crucial $41 billion spending cut for the bill.

Internal Republican Divisions & Negotiations:

Medicaid Moderates: The proposed reduction of provider taxes in Medicaid expansion states is facing a "Medicaid-fueled mutiny" from moderate senators like Susan Collins, who find the proposed $15 billion rural hospital stabilization fund "inadequate." Some are threatening to block floor debate without more clarity on Medicaid changes.

SALT Deduction: Blue-state Republicans have rejected a Treasury offer to raise the cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction to $40,000, calling it "unrealistic." This remains a key unresolved issue.

Public Land Sales: Five House Republicans have declared a "red line" against including public land sales in the megabill, threatening to vote against it. They view it as a "grave mistake" and a "poison pill." This provision also faces strong Senate opposition.

Leadership Meetings & Deadlines:

Senate Majority Leader John Thune met with President Donald Trump at the White House as Republicans work against their self-imposed July 4 deadline. There is skepticism among some in the Senate GOP about whether they can get the bill to the President by this deadline. An initial vote to begin debate on the bill is now not expected before Saturday.

Kansas Governor Laura Kelly (D) anticipates that Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), despite his objections to certain bill provisions, will ultimately vote with his party due to pressure from the comprehensive nature of the megabill.

The combination of parliamentarian rulings, internal Republican dissent, and complex negotiations across various policy areas is making the passage of the "megabill" a challenging and fluid process.

------

It seems that the bill is still being worked on so contact your Senators on troublesome provisions, reminding them to invoke the Byrd Rule against troublesome provisions should a procedural vote come before a new text is released.

General Page to call on the bill:

Page to call against Section 203, the provision that targets courts by requiring an expensive bond be payed to sue the government:

Page on AI regulation Ban:

------

Politico Thread following the Spending Bill Chaos:

Here's a summary of the Politico updates so far:

The Senate Megabill and "Vote-a-rama"

The Senate is currently undergoing a "vote-a-rama" for a "megabill," which is the final hurdle before the bill's potential approval. This process, characteristic of budget reconciliation bills, allows for an unlimited number of amendments to be proposed and voted on. Senate Republicans aim to pass the bill, which includes significant tax cuts and spending changes, by a self-imposed July 4 deadline.

Key Debates and Amendments:

Medicaid: A central point of contention is a proposed amendment by Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) that would significantly reduce federal Medicaid payments after 2030, increasing the burden on states. Senator Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) has expressed strong concerns about this, indicating it could hinder his support for the bill. There are also discussions about how the megabill might impact House Medicaid cuts.

Clean Energy Tax Credits: Senator Murkowski (R-Alaska) plans an amendment to ease the phaseouts of solar and wind energy tax credits. This is relevant to the broader discussions on clean energy provisions within the megabill.

Accounting Baseline: Senate Republicans rejected a challenge from Democrats regarding the "current policy baseline" accounting tactic used for the bill.

Remittance Tax: A GOP plan for a remittance tax is expected to generate more revenue despite a lower rate.

Orphan Drug Provision: The Senate Parliamentarian initially nixed a litigation tax provision and then reversed course, allowing an orphan drug provision to remain in the megabill. This provision would expand Medicare drug price negotiation exemptions for certain medicines.

Planned Parenthood Funding: There are ongoing discussions and concerns related to Planned Parenthood funding within the GOP megabill.

Farm Aid Amendment: Senator Boozman (R-Ark.) moved to block Senator Grassley's (R-Iowa) farm aid amendment.

Alaska SNAP Carveout: Senate Republicans are working to save the Alaska SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) carveout.

Crypto Provisions: The bill is also seen as a "megabill moment" for cryptocurrency-related provisions.

Other Notable Updates:

Dwight Evans' Retirement: Representative Dwight Evans (D-Pa.) has announced his retirement.

Dusty Johnson's Bid: There's an update regarding Representative Dusty Johnson's (R-S.D.) bid for an unspecified role or initiative.

Fetterman's Vote: Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.) cast a vote on the megabill remotely from his beach home.

Elon Musk: Elon Musk is noted as being "back on the offensive," though the specific context within the Politico update isn't detailed in the summaries.

------

So yeah, the Bill is currently being edited with the Vote-A-Rama.

The final vote will likely be either really late tonight or tomorrow.

I know about what’s going on in Iran but I will remain focused on this threat to courts.

Contact your Senators and have them call out Section 203!

A summary for those who can’t access the article!

———

Senate Republicans' "Big Beautiful Bill" and Judicial Obstruction

Senate Republicans have revised a controversial provision in the House GOP's massive tax and spending bill. While they removed a clause that would have allowed President Trump to disregard court orders by preventing the enforcement of contempt citations, they replaced it with new language that could still significantly limit legal challenges against the federal government.

Original House Provision (Section 70302 - Removed)

The House bill included Section 70302, "RESTRICTION OF FUNDS," which would have barred courts from using appropriated funds to enforce contempt citations for failure to comply with injunctions or temporary restraining orders if no security bond was given. This measure was retroactive and would have effectively stripped courts, including the Supreme Court, of their primary tool for ensuring compliance with their rulings. This was particularly concerning given the 184 court orders that had already temporarily halted actions by the Trump administration. Critics argued this provision would have allowed Trump to act without judicial accountability.

New Senate Provision (Section 203 - Proposed)

The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chair Chuck Grassley, introduced new language in Section 203, "RESTRICTION ON ENFORCEMENT," that would require anyone seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the federal government to post a bond covering potential costs and damages if the government were to lose the case. Legal experts and advocacy groups, such as Earthjustice Action and the National Women's Law Center, warn that these bonds could amount to millions or even billions of dollars, making it virtually impossible for public interest groups or average citizens to sue the administration. While this new provision is narrower (applying only to the federal government and not retroactive), it is seen as an equally effective way to insulate the Trump administration from legal challenges.

Concerns and Implications

Both the original House provision and the proposed Senate language raise serious concerns about access to justice and the separation of powers. Democrats and legal advocates argue that these measures are attempts to shield the Trump administration from accountability and undermine the judiciary's role as a check on executive power. The Senate Republicans are using a fast-track budget reconciliation process, which requires all provisions to be budget-related, suggesting the new bond requirement was chosen to fit this rule while achieving a similar outcome to the removed contempt provision.

———

Find your Senators here!

Be calm and respectful but firm and to the point.

Explain why a certain provision is bad for the average citizen and don't go overboard.

Have them call out these awful provisions, as it’s been noted that this provision quite certainly violates the Byrd Rule and can be struck down by it/or would have good grounds to be challenged in court should it pass!

https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/chairman-crapo-releases-finance-committee-reconciliation-text

Will update soon, so far my analysis shows no sign of Nonprofit Killer being readded.

House to make fixes to GOP megabill to avoid ‘fatal’ ruling with Senate parliamentarian

House Republicans need to make sure their package passes muster with the Senate rules.

From post:

House Republicans will try to fix issues with their megabill in the Rules Committee this week based on provisions the Senate parliamentarian has identified as non-compliant with the chamber’s rules, according to five people with direct knowledge of the plans.

Republicans need to send their massive tax and spending package to the Senate to make its own changes. But without making certain revisions to the House-passed bill first, it could run afoul of the chamber’s parliamentarian.

In the words of one senior House GOP aide, granted anonymity to speak candidly, certain House-approved provisions could prove “fatal” to the bill’s ability to comply with the rules surrounding the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process, which Republicans are relying upon to pass their domestic policy measure without Democratic votes.

House GOP leaders are currently working through the bill text and will either strike small pieces of the legislation or drop certain sections altogether.

One provision the parliamentarian has raised concerns about is a clearinghouse to crack down on duplicative food aid, Medicaid and other safety net benefits, according to two other people aware of the emerging plan. This issue is currently in limbo between two panel jurisdictions.

Among the many rules Senate Republicans must adhere to in a reconciliation bill is that it can’t include a policy that falls outside the jurisdiction of one of the committees empowered through the budget resolution Republicans approved in April to set parameters for the larger package. It also can’t include a policy that would affect federal spending, when the committee in question was instructed to change revenue.

Lawmakers will work within the House Rules Committee to make these tweaks, according to the people, inserting the new language into an unrelated rule which the panel will adopt Tuesday to govern floor consideration for other legislation.

That tactic would negate the need to have House Republicans vote on the party-line tax and spending package as a standalone measure, when passing the bill the first time around through a razor-thin GOP majority was a painful enough episode for leadership.

The GOP plan to make technical corrections to the megabill inside the Rules Committee was first reported by Punchbowl News.

------

So, it sounds like they’re going back and altering or removing controversial parts of the House text in order to avoid conflict with the Parliamentarian.

I should note that Senate Majority Leader Thune was asked about going against the Parliamentarian in an interview sometime within the past week and responded with “We’re not going there” but time will tell if he keeps his word.

Anyway I hope that Section 70302, (that awful provision targeting courts from issuing contempt if there was no bond paid which also applied retroactively so you can see the issue), is one the things struck out here.