Connect with us

Business

Column: Ban congressional stock trading, but don’t stop there

Published

on

Column: Ban congressional stock trading, but don’t stop there

One wonders whether or not Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) has come to remorse the monetary killing his spouse made in shares of the metal firm Cleveland-Cliffs final yr.

In keeping with public filings, Victoria Kelly’s buying and selling turned a revenue someplace between $28,000 and $137,500 in lower than a yr.

The buying and selling, nevertheless, turned her husband right into a poster baby for the potential conflicts of curiosity that may come up from congressional members’ unrestricted inventory buying and selling, and in addition earned him an investigation by congressional ethics officers.

“If members need to do this, I’m OK with that.”

Home Speaker Nancy Pelosi, yielding on proscribing congressional inventory buying and selling

Advertisement

They discovered there was “substantial purpose to consider” that the buying and selling was triggered by nonpublic data Kelly acquired, and that it could have violated ethics guidelines and federal legislation. The case remains to be pending.

Within the wake of the Kelly accusations and a bunch of different suspect buying and selling by members of Congress and their staffs, curiosity in tightening up guidelines on congressional securities buying and selling has spiked on Capitol Hill. Probably the most far-reaching proposals would ban buying and selling in shares and different securities totally.

That may be a very good transfer. It could take away one main supply of conflicts of curiosity for lawmakers and could be a step towards elevating Congress’ public standing, which has been drifting into the muck for years.

However let’s face the info: It would lop off the tip of the iceberg of congressional conflicts of curiosity, however would do virtually nothing about the remainder of the iceberg of illicit affect peddling in Washington. Addressing that may require dramatic reforms in legal guidelines governing lobbying and marketing campaign finance, that are by no means on the desk.

For lawmakers, restrictions on inventory gross sales might even be helpful in diverting public consideration from these different sources of affect, which for the common senator or congressman could also be much more profitable in the long run, resembling guarantees of employment following congressional service. So restrictions on inventory buying and selling could also be all we get simply now.

Inventory buying and selling might have turn out to be a specific focus of public ire each as a result of particular person inventory buying and selling is a reasonably alien follow for the common American family, and since it symbolizes the pursuits of the rich.

That makes the objection raised by one Republican, Rep. Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, sound crazy. McHenry, the rating GOP member of the Home Monetary Providers Committee, advised Politico on Wednesday that he opposes a ban as a result of “it’s a horrible concept to take away lawmakers from society.”

Advertisement

If McHenry genuinely believes that inventory buying and selling is what makes lawmakers delicate to the issues of their fellow Individuals, he should be genuinely out of contact. He mentioned he would offer his personal proposals someday quickly.

That mentioned, the stress for some stage of restriction could also be turning right into a juggernaut, as my colleague Jennifer Haberkorn has reported.

On Jan. 20, Home Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) softened her longtime opposition to new buying and selling restrictions: “If members need to do this, I’m OK with that,” she mentioned. Bipartisan payments have been launched in each chambers, bowing to opinion polls signifying that the general public believes lawmakers have an unfair benefit in selecting shares.

The very concept that lawmakers ought to have the ability to exploit their official positions for private monetary acquire grates on voters, because it ought to.

“Voters have a proper to know that their elected officers have the general public curiosity in thoughts, and never their private curiosity,” Kedric Payne, senior director of ethics on the Marketing campaign Authorized Heart, advised me. “With unrestricted inventory buying and selling, we all know that the general public loses confidence of their elected officers.”

Advertisement

A number of latest circumstances have underscored that actuality.

Ethics investigators decided that Victoria Kelly, Rep. Kelly’s spouse, purchased between $15,001 and $50,000 of inventory in Cleveland-Cliffs, a steelmaker with a plant in Kelly’s house district close to Erie, Pa., on April 29, 2020.

That was the very day after Kelly’s congressional workplace was knowledgeable that the Commerce Division was poised to make an announcement on metal tariffs that may instantly profit the corporate, and that Kelly had lobbied for.

Victoria Kelly purchased the shares for about $4.70 every and offered them for about $18.11 the next January. She, her husband, congressional staffer Matt Stroia and then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross all refused to cooperate with the investigation, ethics investigators mentioned.

Different buying and selling scandals erupted in the course of the pandemic.

Advertisement

Former Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia or members of their households had been discovered to have offered thousands and thousands of {dollars} in shares across the time that they might have been aware of briefings in regards to the pandemic’s financial penalties. Loeffler’s husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is chairman of the New York Inventory Alternate.

Each politicians had been defeated of their runoff races for the Senate final yr, after their opponents used their inventory buying and selling in opposition to them. However Justice Division investigations of each had been finally dropped.

Sen. Richard M. Burr (R-N.C.) abruptly offered $1.65 million in shares — virtually his total portfolio — on Feb. 13, 2020, shortly after he acquired categorized briefings suggesting a dire pandemic outlook for the U.S.

Among the many corporations he unloaded had been some that may be particularly susceptible to a pandemic downturn, together with accommodations and resorts. Inside per week of Burr’s gross sales, the inventory market started a steep drop on pandemic information, with the Commonplace & Poor’s 500 index falling about 33% by March 20.

(If Burr didn’t return to the market, he missed out on a powerful restoration: The S&P 500 made up its losses by mid-August 2020 and closed the yr with a acquire of greater than 18%. In different phrases, Burr would have been well-advised to sit down tight as a substitute of promoting.)

Advertisement

A legal investigation of Burr’s buying and selling was closed by the Division of Justice in January 2021, however a Securities and Alternate civil investigation of buying and selling by him and his brother-in-law seems to be but unresolved. Burr selected to not run for reelection this yr.

The highlight has landed on different rich lawmakers, together with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Feinstein positioned her property in a blind belief when she joined the Senate in 1992. Her husband, investor Richard Blum, is a vigorous inventory dealer. The Justice Division investigated Feinstein’s buying and selling in 2020, however finally dropped the case.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) landed atop a listing of frequent merchants in 2021, with practically $53 million in whole purchases and gross sales. However Khanna’s workplace defined that the transactions occurred in his spouse’s portfolio, which was assembled earlier than their marriage and is managed by an outdoor advisor. “No buying and selling is completed by way of joint accounts,” Khanna’s spokeswoman mentioned.

Pelosi apparently doesn’t commerce shares herself, however has reported holdings attributed to her husband, Paul, an funding supervisor, together with shares and derivatives of quite a few corporations topic to authorities oversight in a single type or one other, resembling Amazon, Apple and Alphabet (the father or mother of Google).

Regardless of the explanations, the dimensions and timing of congressional buying and selling and the potential for abuse are evident. The query is how finest to handle this.

Advertisement

It’s apparent that the Cease Buying and selling on Congressional Data, or STOCK, Act of 2012, which was enacted in response to an earlier outbreak of monetary scandals, is an ineffective countermeasure.

The act adopted the normal buying and selling enforcement mannequin of counting on disclosure to quell wrongdoing; typically it requires public disclosure of inventory trades inside not more than 45 days of the transaction. The stories solely should establish transaction quantities in broad ranges, not by specifics. The act doesn’t ban buying and selling, except it’s based mostly on nonpublic data gained by way of a member’s or staffer’s official duties. That’s a nebulous normal at finest.

The measure’s disclosure provisions “make the issue worse,” Payne argues. “It exhibits you the conflicts of curiosity and potential occurrences of insider buying and selling, with no means of coping with them. It’s like a health care provider prescribing X-rays for a affected person. X-rays may also help diagnose an issue, however you may’t use an X-ray as a remedy. The STOCK Act exhibits us the quantity of buying and selling that’s occurring and the varieties of trades which are occurring. Now what are we going to do about it?”

What, certainly? Even assuming that some type of possession or buying and selling restriction will get handed this yr, the choices are virtually limitless.

It’s attainable to design a invoice with so many delicate loopholes that it’s primarily ineffective. Ought to spouses and dependent kids be included? Dad and mom? Grownup kids? (Any of them might be recipients of helpful and tradable confidences.) How ought to current holdings be handled? And what are the penalties?

Advertisement

That final level is essential. The penalties within the STOCK Act are so risibly meager — as much as $200 per violation, which could be waived by ethics officers — so meager that the regulation has been routinely flouted by scores of members of Congress and their workers members.

The strictest proposal at present on the desk seems to be the one launched Wednesday by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Matthew M. Rosendale (R-Mont.).

As Warren’s workplace described the measure, it could ban the possession or buying and selling by members of Congress and their spouses of “particular person shares, bonds, commodities, futures, and different securities together with an curiosity in a hedge fund, a spinoff, an possibility or different advanced funding car.” Broad-based mutual funds resembling index funds, Treasury securities and investments held in a authorities retirement fund can be exempt.

Members would have six months to promote any current securities holdings and 5 years to unload pursuits in hedge funds or enterprise funds. They’d be insulated from capital positive factors taxes the identical as government department appointees compelled to promote investments which may current a battle.

These taxes are deferred to the extent the positive factors are promptly reinvested in permissible property resembling broad mutual funds or Treasury securities; solely when the successor investments are offered do the capital positive factors taxes kick in.

Advertisement

The penalties can be steep: as much as $50,000 per violation.

Considerably extra indulgent is a proposal launched final month by Democratic Sens. Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Mark Kelly of Arizona. Their invoice would give members the choice of divesting property or putting them in a blind belief — that’s, a belief underneath the management of an impartial overseer who would haven’t any contact with or take directions from the member. It could apply to spouses and dependent kids.

As a result of the Ossoff-Kelly measure doesn’t present for a divestment tax break, in impact it encourages members to go for a blind belief.

The principle drawback right here is that blind trusts aren’t all the time so blind. The beginning portfolio would presumably be no secret to the members, and in the event that they merely assume minimal buying and selling throughout the belief, they might make assumptions about how their very own actions would possibly have an effect on the portfolio.

“Hear, you place your property in a blind belief, you’re nonetheless conscious of what property had been put in that blind belief,” Daines mentioned, rightly, upon the introduction of his and Warren’s stiffer invoice.

Advertisement

Penalties for violations of the Ossoff-Kelly invoice would high out at one month’s congressional wage, or $14,500 for rank-and-file members, who gather $174,000 a yr, and as much as $18,625 for the Home Speaker, whose annual wage is $223,500.

It’s more likely to be months earlier than a ultimate model jells on Capitol Hill. Whether or not Congress carves out sufficient loopholes to make that model little greater than window-dressing, or exhibits that it’s severe about shutting down at the very least this one type of legalized profiteering, is unimaginable to say simply but. Not solely the general public curiosity is at stake; the fame of Congress hangs within the steadiness, too.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

As Art Sales Fall, Christie’s and Sotheby’s Pivot to Luxury

Published

on

As Art Sales Fall, Christie’s and Sotheby’s Pivot to Luxury

When art works fetch spectacular auction prices, like the record $450.3 million for Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” in 2017, the world’s focus turns for a moment to the arcane goings-on of the international art trade. But with the market in a downturn for the last two years, there have been few attention-grabbing sales at the world’s two biggest and oldest auction houses, Sotheby’s and Christie’s.

An exception came at November’s marquee auctions of modern and contemporary art in New York, when the world’s media — and social media in particular — were momentarily enthralled by the seeming absurdity of a cryptocurrency investor spending $6.2 million at Sotheby’s for a duct-taped banana. But there is a big difference between $6.2 million and $450.3 million.

Sales at Sotheby’s and Christie’s were down for the second year in a row in 2024, according to preliminary figures released by the companies in December. With both supply and demand for big-ticket art in a slump, the auction houses are making major bets on selling luxury goods and niche experiences to make up the shortfall.

Sotheby’s estimated it would have turned over about $6 billion in auction and private sales by year-end, a decline of 24 percent on 2023. Christie’s announced projected aggregate sales of $5.7 billion, down 6 percent year-on-year. Back in 2022, Sotheby’s and Christie’s posted annual turnover of $8 billion and $8.4 billion.

“The auction houses have major problems,” said Christine Bourron, the chief executive of the London-based company Pi-eX, which analyzes art sale results. “They really need to do some thinking about how they can bring some life into their auction business. People who have an interest in art want to have an experience,” added Bourron, who, like many followers of the auction market, finds both Sotheby’s and Christie’s live and online sales increasingly predictable.

Advertisement

Sotheby’s is owned by the French-Israeli telecoms magnate Patrick Drahi, whose beleaguered Altice group is burdened with $60 billion of debt. Sotheby’s deteriorating performance led the auction house to reach out to Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, A.D.Q., for a $1 billion cash-for-equity bailout and to lay off more than 100 employees in December. This followed some costly infrastructure decisions: Sotheby’s $100-million purchase of the Breuer Building in New York’s Madison Avenue, the opening of a new headquarters in Paris and the development of a futuristic exhibition and retail space in Hong Kong.

Sotheby’s website now abounds with opportunities to buy pre-owned luxury items at auction or by “instant purchase,” as if in a store, ranging from real estate, classic cars and dinosaur fossils, to smaller prestige collectibles like designer handbags, jewelry, fine wines and game-worn N.B.A. jerseys.

Josh Pullan, Sotheby’s global head of luxury, said sales of such goods draw in wealthy clients who may, in time, start to buy high-end art. “Luxury categories are for us a vital gateway for new, often younger, collectors,” he added.

Last year, luxury generated about 33 percent of sales at Sotheby’s, compared with 16 percent at Christie’s, according to the companies’ communications teams. But the category attracted more buyers than art did.

Guillaume Cerutti, the chief executive of Christie’s, spoke to reporters last month during an end-of-year media call. “Luxury has an advantage, because of the model and the price points,” he said. “Luxury and art will merge with each other,” he added, hinting at future synergies of presentation and categorization.

Advertisement

Christie’s is owned by the luxury goods billionaire François-Henri Pinault, whose Kering conglomerate has also been hit by flagging sales. After introducing handbag auctions back in 2014, Christie’s is now having to catch up with Sotheby’s offering of luxury items and trophy collectibles, like dinosaur skeletons. In September, Christie’s announced that it had reached an agreement to acquire the California-based classic car auctioneers Gooding & Co., setting up a rivalry with Sotheby’s car business, RM Sotheby’s, which last year turned over $887 million in classic auto sales.

“The luxury resale market presents a compelling opportunity for auction houses,” said Daniel Langer, a professor of luxury strategy at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. “Storytelling is a critical success factor in the luxury industry. Auction houses excel in this area — take the recent banana auction as an example,” he added. Sotheby’s marketing, like that of a luxury brand, had skilfully woven a narrative around the sensation that the banana sculpture, by the Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan, created when first exhibited at the Art Basel Miami Beach fair in 2019.

However, this opportunity comes with “significant challenges,” according to Langer. He pointed out that unlike luxury brands, auction houses don’t produce and price all of their own inventory; profit margins on new luxury items are often much higher than their resold equivalents; and unlike conglomerates such as LVMH and Kering, auction houses can’t scale their transactions through a network of retail outlets. These disparities between retail and resale “could limit the overall financial impact of luxury for auction houses,” he said.

Changing spending patterns among the wealthy could also affect demand.

Global sales of luxury flatlined in 2024 for the first time since 2008 (excluding 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic), according to a recent report by the management consultants Bain & Co. The report’s authors said consumers were prioritizing “experiences over products” in these uncertain times and that the luxury goods market, rather like the art market, is suffering from buyer fatigue.

Advertisement

“The super-wealthy in their 30s, 40s and 50s are spending their money on luxury experiences,” said Doug Woodham, a former Christie’s executive who now advises on art-related finance. “That’s money that isn’t being spent on a Matisse drawing,” he added.

“With superluxury experiences, the social cache is so much higher,” said Woodham, who pioneered handbag sales at Christie’s in 2014. “For half a million dollars I can have my 10 best friends on a lavish yacht. They will remember that more than sitting in my house with a Rothko on the wall.”

The global luxury yacht charter market grew to an all-time high of $16.3 billion in 2024, a 6 percent increase on the previous year, according to the Business Research Company. It said that growth has been driven by the popularity of “exclusive and exotic travel destinations” and the “ongoing trend towards experiential luxury.”

In September, Sotheby’s collaborated with the Marriott International hotel chain and the fashion house Alexander McQueen to offer a sealed bid auction, in which bidders can’t see the rival offers. The winner got a two-night stay one of the group’s 5-star London sites as part of an experience that the Sotheby’s website said would “transport guests to where a teenaged McQueen first learned the art of tailoring.” Also included were a five-course fine-dining meal for two, a bespoke tour of London with a private visit to the Victoria & Albert Museum and a personalized photo session with Ann Ray, a longtime McQueen collaborator. Classifying the auction as a private sale, Sotheby’s declined to reveal how much the winning bidder paid for this unique luxury experience, but the presale estimate was $12,000 to $18,000.

Could selling memories, instead of art, be the future of the auction business?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Column: California employers wrap themselves in the 1st Amendment to kill a pro-worker law

Published

on

Column: California employers wrap themselves in the 1st Amendment to kill a pro-worker law

It’s always heartening to see the business establishment stand up for constitutional principles.

Well, almost always. Among the exceptions is when business leaders wrap themselves in the Constitution to secure their own privileges at the expense of the public interest.

That’s the case with a curious little lawsuit the California Chamber of Commerce and California Restaurant Assn. dropped in Sacramento federal court on New Year’s Eve. Their target is Senate Bill 399, otherwise known as the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act, which was signed by Gov. Newsom on Sept. 27 and took effect on New Year’s Day.

It should be clear…that a captive-audience meeting is an extraordinary exercise and demonstration of employer power over employees.

— National Labor Relations Board

Advertisement

The law is straightforward. It bans “captive audience meetings,” which are those scheduled by employers to ply workers with religious, political and (especially) anti-union propaganda. Nothing in the law bars employers from holding such meetings when worker attendance is voluntary. The “captive” part, the law specifies, is when employees face “discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action” for failing to attend.

As my colleague Suhauna Hussain has reported, 10 other states have implemented similar bans. So far, they’ve survived legal challenges. Bans on captive meetings are under consideration in at least five other states. They also were outlawed by the National Labor Relations Board with a ruling on Nov. 13, overturning an anti-union policy dating from 1948. The 3-1 ruling, with the board’s Democratic members in the majority and its sole Republican in dissent, involved Amazon.com’s campaign against a union organizing drive at New York-area facilities. Amazon has said it will appeal the ruling.

Captive audience meetings are among “the most pernicious and coercive tactics an employer can use to browbeat and intimidate workers into voting against a union,” says William B. Gould IV, an emeritus professor of law at Stanford and a former chairman of the NLRB and the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board.

The NLRB’s November ruling applied to captive meetings involving unionization drives, which fall within the board’s jurisdiction. The California law goes further by bringing meetings involving political and religious matters into the mix. But the state laws and the NLRB’s ruling make the same distinctions between meetings at which attendance is voluntary, and those that workers are required to attend on pain of discipline. The first are legal, the second illegal.

Advertisement

Since they were seemingly blessed by the NLRB in 1948, captive audience meetings have become “a common feature” of corporate anti-union campaigns, the board observed in the Amazon case. A 2009 study of 1,004 NLRB-supervised union representation elections cited in its ruling found that captive audience meetings had been held in 89% of cases; more than half of the employers had held more than five “in the runup to an election.”

The Amazon campaign is a good example. In opposing the unionization drive, which was ultimately successful, Amazon scheduled mandatory meetings every 45 minutes, six days a week at the Staten Island, N.Y., warehouse where the drive originated. At these meetings, company representatives delivered speeches attacking unions in general and the Amazon union drive specifically.

The NLRB found that “managers personally notified employees that they were scheduled to attend, escorted them to the meetings, and scanned their ID badges to digitally record attendance.”

Amazon’s activities prompted the board to reconsider the 1948 policy, which was set forth in a case involving the boiler company Babcock & Wilcox. The board noted that the 1948 finding that captive audience meetings didn’t violate labor law was “largely unexplained” and “flawed” under the law. So it was bound to be overturned.

In its detailed analysis of the topic, the board cited numerous past board rulings and Supreme Court decisions that say that employers have the right to express their opinions about unions and unionization, but not to compel employees to listen.

Advertisement

“It should be clear,” the board found, “that a captive-audience meeting is an extraordinary exercise and demonstration of employer power over employees,” especially when the employees’ decisions on whether to join the union is at issue.

That brings us back to the lawsuit the Chamber and Restaurant Assn. filed in Sacramento federal court. The lawsuit asserts that any ban on mandatory meetings infringes the employers’ free-speech rights as enshrined in the 1st Amendment. (State officials haven’t yet filed a response.)

“Because of SB 399,” the plaintiffs say, “employers in California are now subject to liability, penalties, and other administrative action when they exercise their federal constitutional and statutory rights to talk to employees.”

We think the plaintiffs do protest too much, to quote Shakespeare. The California law does nothing of the kind.

“Under the bill, employers are not prevented from speaking to employees in any way on any subject, including about religious and political matters,” the AFL-CIO stated in a legal memo for the California Labor Federation, which supports the law.

Advertisement

It’s worth remembering that employers — notably restaurant owners — aren’t above using dubious claims to attack pro-worker initiatives. Back in June, I reported that fast food franchise owners asserted that California’s $20 minimum wage for fast food workers had cost the state 10,000 jobs in that sector, going back to September 2023, when Newsom signed the law.

I documented that the statistic was false; it was the product of a misinterpretation of government employment statistics that appeared initially in the Wall Street Journal and was repeated by UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian for an essay on the Hoover Institution website. (Hoover subsequently retracted Ohanian’s essay, which had been specifically cited by the fast food camp for a newspaper ad.)

The plaintiffs may have a stronger argument in their assertion that California’s law governing employer rights in unionization cases is preempted by federal law, namely the 1935 National Labor Relations Act.

The AFL-CIO memo argues that California, like any state, has the right to set “minimum employment standards” for workers in the state. The examples it cites, however, are matters such as child labor laws, minimum wages and occupational safety and health standards, though it also maintains that since states can bar the firing of workers for improper reasons such as race, it can bar discharges for failing to attend a mandatory meeting.

Gould, for one, thinks the plaintiffs may have a point, based on a 1959 Supreme Court ruling that gave the NLRB exclusive jurisdiction over unionization issues unless the board disavows an interest. The issue might well be headed for the Supreme Court for another look.

Advertisement

That might not matter if the NLRB’s decision in the Amazon case stands. But a Trump-dominated labor board, which appears to be preordained, could overturn the Amazon ruling, just as the Biden board overturned Babcock & Wilcox. That might not be the worst change in labor policy for workers as Trump succeeds Biden, who may have been the most pro-union president in history. But it won’t be good.

Continue Reading

Business

Tax Cuts or the Border? Republicans Wrestle Over Trump’s Priorities.

Published

on

Tax Cuts or the Border? Republicans Wrestle Over Trump’s Priorities.

Republicans are preparing to cut taxes, slash spending and slow immigration in a broad agenda that will require unifying an unruly party behind dozens of complicated policy choices.

For now, though, they are struggling with a more prosaic decision: whether to cram their policy goals into one bill or split them into two.

It is a seemingly technical question that reveals a fundamental divide among Republicans about whether to prioritize a wide-ranging crackdown on immigration or cutting taxes, previewing what could be months of intramural policy debate.

Some Republicans have argued that they should pass two bills in order to quickly push through legislation focused on immigration at the southern border, a key campaign promise for Mr. Trump and his party’s candidates. But Republicans devoted to lowering taxes have pressed for one mammoth bill to ensure that tax cuts are not left on the cutting-room floor.

President-elect Donald J. Trump met with Republican senators in Washington on Wednesday, as those lawmakers sought clarity on his preferred strategy. He has waffled between the two ideas, prolonging the dispute.

Advertisement

“Whether it’s one bill or two bills, it’s going to get done,” Mr. Trump told reporters after the meeting.

Republicans are planning to ram the partisan fiscal package through the Senate over the opposition of Democrats using a process called reconciliation, which allows them to steer clear of a filibuster and pass bills with a simple majority vote. But for much of this year, Republicans will be working with a one-seat majority in the House and a three-seat majority in the Senate, meaning they will need near unanimity to pass major legislation.

That has left some worried that it will be hard enough passing one bill, much less two.

“There’s serious risk in having multiple bills that have to pass to get your agenda through,” Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the majority leader, said. “When you know you’ve got a lot of people that want this first package, if you only put certain things in the first package, they can vote no on the second and you lose the whole second package. That would be devastating.”

Adding to the urgency of achieving their policy goals, Republicans are facing a political disaster should they fail to deliver. Many of the tax cuts they put into place in 2017, the last time Mr. Trump was president, expire at the end of the year. That means that taxes on most Americans could go up if Congress does not pass a tax bill this year.

Advertisement

Passing tax cuts can take time, though. While much of the Republican tax agenda involves continuing measures the party passed in 2017, Mr. Trump and other Republicans have floated additional ideas, including no taxes on tips and new incentives for corporations to manufacture in the United States. Ideas like that could take months to formulate into workable policy.

Then there is the gigantic cost. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that simply extending the 2017 tax cuts would cost more than $4 trillion over a decade — a price tag that would grow if other tax cuts, like Mr. Trump’s proposal to not tax overtime pay, are included.

Further complicating support for the legislation is that Republicans plan to raise the debt limit through reconciliation, another sensitive issue for fiscal hawks.

Members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus have said they would not support any legislation unless the costs it introduces are offset by spending cuts. While most Republicans support reining in federal spending, agreeing on which federal programs to slash always proves harder than expected. In an attempted workaround, Republicans have instead begun to explore ways to change Washington’s budget rules so the tax cuts are shown to cost less.

The complexity of pulling together a tax bill that can secure the necessary votes has some Republicans hoping to hold off until later in the year and first charge ahead with a smaller bill focused on immigration, energy and military issues. Republicans have not yet publicly sketched out what that bill would look like.

Advertisement

Proponents of that strategy argue it would deliver Mr. Trump an early political victory on immigration and treat a top Republican campaign issue with the urgency it deserves.

“The No. 1 priority is securing our border,” Representative Byron Donalds of Florida told reporters on Tuesday. “In my opinion it’s the top priority, and everything else is a close second.”

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee who will be overseeing the reconciliation process, has also pressed for a two-bill approach. “If you hold border security hostage to get tax cuts, you’re playing Russian roulette with our national security,” he said.

Republicans have looked to Mr. Trump to intervene and set a clear direction for the party. On Sunday, he wrote on social media that Congress should pass “one powerful Bill,” an apparent victory for lawmakers like Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who had championed that approach. Mr. Trump’s equivocation since then, though, has left Republicans still unsure of which strategy they should pursue.

Mr. Trump’s meeting with top Republican senators on Wednesday will be followed by a discussion with various House Republicans in Florida over the weekend.

Advertisement

In a sign of how politically complicated the tax cut discussion could get, one of the sessions is expected to focus on relaxing the $10,000 limit on the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT.

Republicans included the $10,000 limit in the 2017 tax law as a way to contain the cost of that legislation. But the move angered House Republicans from high-tax states like New York and New Jersey, many of whom voted against the entire 2017 tax bill as a result. Such defections are a luxury that Republican leaders can’t afford this year given their narrow majority.

G.O.P. lawmakers from New York, New Jersey and California could tank a tax bill if they are unsatisfied with how the provision is handled. They are now pushing to lift the cap as part of the party’s tax bill. Eliminating the cap entirely could add roughly $1 trillion to the price tag of the legislation.

Maneuvering ambitious policy agendas through Congress has often been a messy and time-consuming process for presidents. A Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act during Mr. Trump’s first term collapsed after more than six months of discussion.

After quickly passing pandemic relief measures in 2021 under President Biden, much of Democrats’ broader agenda was stymied for almost two years before a second party-line measure passed that was far narrower than many in the party had hoped.

Advertisement

This time around, Republicans will be grappling not only with a historically slim margin in the House, but also a president prone to sudden changes of heart.

“You can argue the merits of both” strategies, said Representative Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican who leads the House Budget Committee. “He has to tell us what he wants and what he needs.”

Continue Reading

Trending