House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Monday that he views discussions of a federal spending freeze — a real-term cut when adjusted for inflation — as “inherently reasonable,” a position likely to rankle progressive lawmakers who have warned against giving an inch to Republican hostage-takers.
“We’re willing to discuss freezing spending at current levels,” Jeffries (D-New York) told reporters following the latest meeting between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) and President Joe Biden on the debt ceiling — a sit-down that came with the U.S. government just 10 days away from possibly defaulting on its obligations.
Jeffries, who has fought with progressives throughout his political career, acknowledged Monday that “many in our party” might be uncomfortable with the idea of a spending freeze, which could cut spending by more than $1 trillion over a decade.
“But President Biden recognizes we’re in a divided government situation,” said Jeffries.
Lindsay Owens, an economist and the executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, was among the progressives who criticized the House Democratic leader’s remarks.
“Jeez. Just showing everyone our cards,” wrote Owens, who has warned that “any time you let Republicans control the terms of the debate around the debt ceiling, you’re in trouble.”
“Starting to think we need to ask the Nevada delegation to bring some poker players to the next caucus lunch for a briefing,” Owens added Monday. “This is just amateur hour.”
MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan also expressed dismay over Jeffries’ comments:
After previously saying he would not be willing to attach any conditions to a debt ceiling increase — a stance that was backed by House Democrats across the ideological spectrum — Biden has voiced openness to reducing spending as part of a compromise with House Republicans, who have used the debt limit as leverage to pursue massive cuts to federal programs such as nutrition assistance and Medicaid.
Notably, Jeffries did not sign an April letter from House Democrats supporting a clean debt limit increase “without any extraneous policies attached.”
On Friday, White House negotiators reportedly offered to accept a deal that would freeze 2024 military and non-military discretionary spending at 2023 levels.
“That would amount to a 5% cut when adjusted for inflation — a step back from the Biden administration budget request in March, which proposed increasing discretionary spending,” Axios noted.
But Republicans dismissed the White House offer, pushing for a larger Pentagon budget and more severe cuts to non-military spending. GOP negotiators are currently pushing for around six years of federal spending caps, which would result in steep cuts to key agencies and programs and hinder the government’s ability to respond to an economic downturn.
Pointing to the White House proposal, McCarthy told the press on Monday that “a freeze is not less, it’s spending the same amount” — ignoring the impact of inflation.
The Republican speaker also made clear that the GOP — which slashed taxes for the rich and corporations in 2017, blowing a huge hole in the deficit — would not accept any tax increases as part of a debt ceiling agreement.
GOP negotiators have rejected White House offers to close tax loopholes, including the notorious carried-interest loophole exploited by rich private equity executives.
“I’ve been very clear with the president from day one. We’re not going to raise taxes,” McCarthy said Monday. “It’s a spending problem.”
Progressive lawmakers continued to push back against Republican demands for spending cuts on Monday as the White House and McCarthy both described their latest meeting in positive terms, signaling that a deal is possible before the June 1 deadline.
“Reminder: When House Republicans insist we ‘spend less,’ they mean public housing, food assistance, Medicaid, and addiction support,” the Congressional Progressive Caucus tweeted Monday. “We cannot give in to this extortion.”
When asked about talk of a spending freeze, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) responded bluntly: “Look at what’s being proposed in terms of cuts. Don’t talk about spending in the abstract.”
“Head Start — 200,000 kids no slots, 100,000 kids without childcare,” DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Monday. “Talk to me about what has been suggested.”
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy