Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) and a member of the Senate Finance Committee, joined me to discuss the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill”: The post Senate Finace Committee Member Steve Daines (R-MT) On The “One, Big Beautiful Bill” appeared first on The Hugh Hewitt Show.
Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) and a member of the Senate Finance Committee, joined me to discuss the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill”:
Audio:
Transcript:
HH: I open with United States Senator Steve Daines of the great state of Montana. Hello, Senator. Welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show.
SD: Glad to join you, Hugh.
HH: You are here on a big day both for the Senate Finance Committee’s release of its bill, but before I go there, you’re a close friend of President Trump’s. I’d like to read to you his last three posts both on Truth Social and X and get your reaction to them. Three posts ago, we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment and plenty of it. But it doesn’t compare to American-made, conceived, and manufactured stuff. Nobody does it better than the good ol’ U.S.A. Second post, we know exactly where the so-called Supreme Leader is hiding. He’s an easy target, but is safe there. We are not going to take him out, kill, at least not for now. We don’t want missiles shot at civilians or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter. And then finally, two hours ago, Unconditional surrender. What’s it all mean, Senator Daines?
SD: Hugh, I think it’s important to step back and put this all in context about the threat of Iran. I remember my first visit with Bibi Netanyahu in Jersualem 12 years ago when we talked about the threat of Iran as they were seeking even then building centrifuges and getting to 90% levels to build a bomb. But at this moment, Hamas is disabled. Hezbollah has been neutered. The Houthis are on their heels. All, of course are proxy terror groups for Iran. One of the reasons the Israelis hesitated in striking Iran earlier was because they knew if they did, it would have unleashed a war with Hezollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Well, if you look at the sequencing what’s happened here over the course of the last two years, after October 7th, the Israelis went on the offensive against Hamas, against Hezbollah, and the Houthis. It gives them now a window of opportunity to do what they need to do, and that is destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And that starts with their command and control in terms of leadership as well as nuclear scientists. They’ve been very methodical about the approach. They’ve taken out about a third of the missile launchers so far. They’re controlling the skies now. That allows them to really tee up the final act, which is going to be to destroy, with probably some deep kind of penetrating ordinance, their nuclear capabilities in places like Fordow and so forth. So I applaud what the Israelis are doing. I stand firmly with them. I’m thankful for President Trump’s bold, decisive and strong leadership as we’re standing side by side with Israel. And let’s not forget this is a regime that had a plot to assassinate President Trump. They’ve killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers. They refer to us as the Great Satan, and Israel as the Little Satan. If Israel didn’t get this done now, it’s just a matter of time before the Iranian regime would strike Israel with a nuclear bomb at some point, and eventually the United States. This has to be done. I’m glad it’s being taken care of.
HH: So Senator Daines, though, do you believe American planes will be in the air over Iran to assist Israel in the destruction of Fordow and other sites?
SD: Yeah, I mean, that’s something that’ll be up to the President, certainly, working with our military leaders in thinking that through. But obviously, we stand closely with Israel. And I think they’ll have to make a decision here. That’ll be President Trump’s decision to make. I am confident if you look at the leadership, the strong, and bold, decisive leadership that’s back to the old President Reagan playbook – peace through strength, combined with, by the way, a great ambassador in Israel named Mike Huckabee representing us there. I’m confident they’ll make the right decision. Whether or not U.S. planes are going to be involved, I don’t know. That’s up to the Commander-in-Chief. I will say I have complete confidence in President Trump and his team in doing the right thing.
HH: All right, now I want to turn to the one big beautiful bill, because Chairman Crapo and your committee released its version of it today. There are a lot of questions about what’s in, what’s not. Let me start with gores my ox. The House gave us a 23% passthrough for small businesses. Your committee took it down to 20%. Why? And is that just a negotiating maneuver?
SD: Well, let’s keep in mind the primary principle and goal of the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee were to take what was passed in 2017 and make it permanent. That was our operating principle. 20% was what was passed in 2017. The one thing we could have done better back in ’17 was to make it permanent. I told the President that two weeks ago. And we can kind of go back and look at what we could have done better. We should not have put an eight year sunset on that bill. That’s for passthroughs. By the way, Hugh, if you go back to 2017, it was two of us – Ron Johnson and myself, who locked arms and said we’re not going to pass this bill unless those passthroughs are addressed. So that whole 199A, 20% discount that takes passthrough rates, top rates before 30% down to about 29% to get them kind of in that 20-something range, because we’ve got C-Corps 21% was something that we fought for and got passed. So the answer to your question, I think we need to start taking a look at some things they did with some of these passthrough workarounds with the states and so forth. We’re going to try to minimize some of those issues and come back to the 20%. The bottom line is I think the net tax paid after we modify some of the other workarounds with the states, will take us to about where we were back in ’17. That’s always been our goal.
HH: Now my response to that as a small businessman, my entire media empire employs 8 people, Senator. So it’s not a big media empire. The whole thing is there’s been a lot of inflation since the President’s first tax bill, and the 20% to the 23% would have made it easier for small businesses to grow and invest. I leave that with you. Let’s move onto, you’ve got some colleagues…
SD: Well, let me, I’ve got one other point, though. One other point on that, Hugh. One thing I fought hard for and we got it down, and in fact, I had to have a discussion with the White House here two weeks ago, was to get permanence on capital expensing and R&D expensing at 100%. So keep in mind, instead of looking at one provision of the bill, step back and look at the fact that capital will be expensed at 100%, R&D at 100%, interest even at 100%. That also will be contributing factors to lowering your overall tax liability and incentivizing the right behavior – grow and research.
HH: I did like that. I did like that. I did not like…
SD: Yeah,…
HH: I’m a retired lawyer. I’m a retired lawyer, so I did not like the workaround for law firms, but let’s leave that aside. Let’s talk now about the recalcitrant members of the caucus on the Senate, and then your House. You’ve got Josh Hawley, who’s concerned about Medicaid, Ron Johnson concerned about spending. Rand Paul’s not going to vote for it. Have you lost anyone else beside that with the Finance Committee bill?
SD: Well, I think right now, it’s down to member to member negotiations with Senator Hawley, with Senator Johnson. I mean, Ron Johnson, a dear friend of mine. We just have a minimal different view about this bill. I think frankly, the change we made in the Senate with some additional revisions certainly on Medicaid to really go after the abuse, the fraud that’s been going on in Medicaid, this makes the bill even better than it was from that out of the House. But I think at this point, there’s a handful of members right now that are expressing some concerns. We can lose three. If we lose four, we’ve got a problem. Three takes us to 50/50 to bring J.D. Vance in and break the tie. I would guess when the dust all settles, Hugh, that when this bill does pass, and it will pass, it’ll be probably with 50 plus 1. That’s just the way reconciliation bills tend to pass. When the Democrats have control, Kamala Harris broke all the ties. I’m guessing that probably, J.D. Vance is breaking the tie here for us as well.
HH: I’m okay with that. Now the next question, we’ve got two minutes. The House is dug in on doubling or tripling the SALT cap. It doesn’t go up at all in your bill. Is that just negotiation positioning?
SD: Well, I think we’re going to give them $10,000 on that. So they’ve asked for a $40,000 dollar SALT exemption. There’s going to be a negotiation there. I think you’ve got to step back and look. That’s a $350 billion dollar provision. It’s a very expensive provision. And frankly, most of us in the Senate don’t like the idea that red states are subsidizing high-tax blue states. That’s why they have to have this big SALT deduction. But if you ask yourself why such a huge deduction at $40,000, I mean, when you look at the average taxpayer in places like New York and California, are paying less than $10,000 in terms of SALT taxes. Why does it have to be $40,000 dollars? If you’re talking about trying to protect first responders and nurses and teachers, and laborers in the construction field, why does it have to be $40,000 dollars? That’s for the very, very wealthy, the fringe liberal elites, frankly, on the East Coast and the West Coast. So that’s why a lot of us from red states have a problem with it. So I think there will be a path forward. There’s ways we can put caps on income. If they’re dead set on the $40,000, you can take the income caps and bring them down, or basically…
HH: I heard the compromise right there. I heard it.
SD: Yeah.
HH: I heard it, Steve Daines. You just gave me the tip on that. Does the final bill get to the President’s desk by July 4th?
SD: The President’s asking for it. I think better odds than not, we get it done. I think we must do it. Look, we’ve got to stop the tax increase. We’ve got to get the debt ceiling here before August.
HH: I hope you are right, Steve Daines. Come back, Senator, every time you need to explain something to me, the slow guy. I love talking the specifics with you, and thank you for the introduction on Iran as well. Don’t go anywhere, America.
End of interview.
The post Senate Finace Committee Member Steve Daines (R-MT) On The “One, Big Beautiful Bill” appeared first on The Hugh Hewitt Show.
