Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone, and happy Friday. Coming up later this hour, New York City Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro on Mayor Adams' budget proposal for the next fiscal year. Lots of news there announced yesterday about after-school and other child care, funding for libraries, which seems to be controversial every year. It may not be so this year. Cultural institutions, more for the police, debate over how the budget accounts or not for Trump federal budget cuts, and more with Randy Mastro. That's coming up. Let's start with the federal budget. Congress is taking that up now for the next federal fiscal year, with Medicaid and many other things in play. Republicans in the House and Senate not yet seeing eye to eye with each other, no less with Democrats. This will touch on tariffs as well, which seem to have caused a shrinkage in the economy in the first quarter of this year. If you didn't see that news this week, the first shrinkage in a long time. One more quarter like that and it'll officially be a recession.

We'll also touch on the SAVE Act, controversial for the voting registration requirements it would impose, and more. With me for this is Semafor congressional correspondent Kadia Goba. Kadia, always good to have you. Welcome back to WNYC.

Kadia Goba: Thank you for having me, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Let me actually start with an article of yours from about three weeks ago, April 10th. You wrote, "House Democrats are encountering a new obstacle as they try to drive a wedge within the GOP on tariffs. Their potential Republican allies aren't moving in their direction." Is that still the case after these numbers came out this week, showing we're halfway to a recession?

Kadia Goba: I think the point of the article was that Republicans have a little more leverage right now in terms of where tariffs are and where the economy is. Essentially, if you look at-- I think any resistance towards Donald Trump is going to be based around lack of likability, which, as you pointed out, is there's some indication there in polling, but also how the economy evolves. For me, it was about explaining certain states in the country. Your listeners probably know about the state and local tax deduction argument and/or battle right now.

I think those lawmakers have just a little more leverage in terms of going into these negotiations for reconciliation and increasing the salt cap because if their states are hit with tariff prices or issues centered around tariffs, then that means that they won't have the support from their constituents and therefore the support to give the Republican conference a vote for this reconciliation package. I think the conference is in a little bit of a bind. The longer this takes to pass, the longer there are going to be factions within the Republican Party.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, that's interesting. Talk more about those factions because I think most of our listeners know there's very often a faction from the right, if you want to call it the Freedom Caucus or whatever, that is the most hawkish on the budget. Then there are other Republicans who are not quite as hawkish, but since they only have a couple of vote majority in the House, they need just about all of them to stick together.

Besides that SALT tax deduction cap, which we'll come back to, very relevant, as you say, for places like New York and New Jersey, and California, what do you see as the main dividing lines between factions of Republicans on the budget as it would affect big public policy?

Kadia Goba: Yes. As you point out, there are some incredible fiscal hawks that want funding cut. Then there's like the hard-right members of the House Freedom Caucus who also want huge funding cuts. Their issue is, listen, the country is rolling to massive debt, and other countries will essentially own the US, and it'll hurt the economy if we don't address this. The entire fight for the past year and a half has been about budget cuts, but also what that means is tapping into entitlements, things like Medicaid or the SNAP program.

There are members who understand that their constituents will suffer because of that. One, it hurts their chances of being reelected, especially if they're a Republican in those rural districts. It also hurts the chances of some of those swing districts, like Mike Lawler, who is in a Biden 1 district, but also-- Sorry, who's in a Biden 1 district, and his chances become minimized if he has to take a vote to support Medicaid cuts. Now, he has been on the record time and time again, saying he won't do that. It's going to be how Democrats message this on the ground, whether they convince constituents that Republicans just don't belong in that conference.

Brian Lehrer: Congressman Lawler was just on our show last week and when I asked him about Medicaid, he said he would not support ending the expanded Medicaid that was part of Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, which allowed people with a little more income but still low income to get their health insurance through that federal program. He described other ways that the Republican House was looking at saving money on Medicaid, that he implied he might support, like requiring work for the benefits, which might take people off it, requiring doing better vetting of people if people are actually eligible based on their immigration status, and things like that. That's where Lawlor seemed to come down. Would you say that's where a lot of the House is coming down?

Kadia Goba: Yes. I was on stage at our World Economy Summit the other day, and Mike Haridopolos from Florida essentially said, "I will cut Medicaid when it comes to undocumented citizens or residents and able-bodied people who don't belong." There's going to be a big fight in Congress on all those details. Again, I think any cut to Medicaid gives Democrats an opportunity to message it in a way that suggests a Republican has done something wrong or that Republican is no longer electable. Of course, that's going to matter when it comes to flipping the House a year and a half from now.

Brian Lehrer: Let me stay on Medicaid for maybe just one more question, because some of the talk is about the number $880 billion. That's how much the House Energy and Commerce Committee is being asked to cut from the areas that it oversees, including Medicaid and other health care. There's debate over how much of that would have to come from Medicaid to reach that big number of $880 billion, because maybe they don't oversee other programs that cost as much, that could get them to that target.

Again, when Congressman Lawler was here last week, he singled out the 880 billion number. I didn't even bring it up. He said 880 billion, you know Medicaid isn't the only way to get there. There are other things in the House and Commerce Committee's House Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction that could get us there without taking $880 billion from Medicaid. Are you aware of any of the details on that? Because it might get really interesting. Like, where else can they find big chunks of that 880 billion if they're going to satisfy the mandate of leadership to cut that much?

Kadia Goba: Look, they can do a bunch of different things. They could actually shrink that number of $880 billion, which would infuriate budget hawks and people on the far right who want those budget cuts. It's something that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is already floating because of the SNAP debate. He's right, there are other things that can contribute to that reduction. I got to say, months ago, when I asked Ralph Norman, part of the Freedom Caucus months ago, who wants these intense budget cuts, that was the question on the board. What can you cut to equate to those $880 billion?

His response is it's got to be Medicaid. It is just the biggest pot right now. Pulling from a bunch of different options that ENC or Energy and Commerce oversees doesn't impact as much as the pot of Medicaid, and that is their issue. That is their issue.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take some phone calls for Kadia Goba, who covers Congress for Semafor. Obviously, we're talking about the federal budget debate that is brewing for real now in Congress now that they're back from their spring break and they have to try to get this done by the end of summer, which might seem like a long time from now. The new fiscal year starts October 1st, technically. There will be so much in play with the sort of revolution that's going on in Washington right now, and the Republicans only having that very slim majority in the House that we're talking about.

We'll get to other details. With any calls on that or other things that Kadia might be covering as congressional correspondent, 212-433-WNYC. 212-433-9692. Some of her other recent headlines: "Gallego open to Working with Trump on housing." That's about a plan to put more housing on federal land. Is there really federal land that can take up the housing shortage in the United States? She wrote an article, "Democrats press Hegseth on Signal Chats, firings." We know that the national security director, not the defense secretary, Hegseth, just seemed to take the fall for that. House Democrats head to El Salvador on Maryland man's behalf. That, of course, is the Abrego Garcia case.

It's not just Chris Van Hollen anymore. Democrats seem to see a soft spot. Even if Kilmar Abrego Garcia himself may not look like a very sympathetic character for some of the things that he's at least been accused of, but never formally criminally charged, Democrats seem to see an opening there. Kadia is reporting on that. You ask your relevant question of your choice. 212-433-WNYC. 212-433-9692. Staying on the budget, we've talked a little bit about spending cuts. We haven't talked yet about tax cuts. I imagine for Democrats, at very least, this is going to be a big talking point. It already is. It has been. They want to take Medicaid away from poor people so they can give big tax cuts to rich people. How's that starting to go in the Republican caucus in the House and Senate?

Kadia Goba: Do you mean bigger tax cuts to higher?

Brian Lehrer: Yes. How are they starting to approach extending the Trump tax cuts from his first term and possibly adding to it? Or are they getting politically shy about that at all, seeing it perhaps as a political vulnerability?

Kadia Goba: No, I think Republicans, if they know one thing, they have to extend the 2017 tax cuts. Essentially, just to sum it up, if that doesn't happen, if Republicans don't have an opportunity to or don't actually pass a new tax bill that extends those tax cuts, everyone will feel an increase in their taxes. It's like political suicide, and I don't think they want that to happen. The issue here is paying for those tax cuts, especially when the President has ushered in, in addition to his 2017 tax cuts, no tax, obviously trying to appeal to the working class, but no tax on tips, no tax on overtime payment, no tax on Social Security.

All of those things cost money. What you have here is a group of lawmakers who are adamant about cutting the deficit and and then the president countering that with asking for other things that don't contribute to any revenue. It's a bind, but at the very least, everyone expects the tax package from 2017 at least to be extended.

Brian Lehrer: A few of the things that have been floated along those lines, I wonder if they actually might have legs in Congress. One is, and you can remind me if this came from Trump or somebody representing him, I think he floated the idea, or somebody did, of no tax on any income up to $150,000. Do I have that right? Did you see that?

Kadia Goba: Again, all of this is what will give working-class people a tax break. There are a bunch of different proposals, and all of it boils down to what will give working-class people a tax break while also not cutting into any revenue generators. That number is going to fluctuate, and it's all going to be based on the other tax cuts they establish or revenue generators that they make vanish. When you don't have tax on tips, that's a lot of money that's not being contributed to the Treasury. That number is fluctuating.

I haven't heard any actual concrete income line right now. It's still up in the air. To be honest with you, Brian, Ways and Means-- To put this in perspective, the other lawmakers or the other committees have to establish their cuts before Ways and Means can establish any kind of tax bill. Because it all matters on what passes or what is confirmed in these other committees on how much they can cut from the other committees will determine how the tax conversations play out. Does that make sense?

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Here's this story from March 27th. This is from the website Taxes for Expats. That's the one that happened to come up first, but there's lots of places. Trump proposes no income tax for earners under $150,000. Then here's a critique of that from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Ending taxes below $150,000 would lose 10 to 15 trillion." Obviously, as you've been saying, they would need to make that up somehow if they're not just adding that much to the federal deficit.

Then Trump also seemed to float the possibility of a tax increase as a populist measure for some of the very wealthiest earners. Then he seemed to back off of it, saying, "Yes, personally, I like the idea, but I think it's politically unfeasible." You saw that, right?

Kadia Goba: Yes. Again, Trump floats a lot. I don't even know if no tax on tips or Social Security, or overtime pay is actually going to pass. Congress has to make the bills. The President, yes, is throwing out a lot of options. It does not. Congress has to make the laws, and they have to fit it within this budget reconciliation that will make all members of the House happy, all Republican members. That means people in Lawler's district, or people like Lawler, and all the way to the people in Nebraska who have a plus-18 Republican district.

He can float all he wants, but Congress needs to get the votes to pass the bill. In terms of high earners, that was particularly interesting because my colleague Burgess Everett broke that he had loaded it privately to senators. Ironically, I'd spoken to Representative Andy Harris, he's the chair of the Freedom Caucus out of Maryland, who suggested the same thing a week earlier than when we reported that. This is not a popular thing, taxing high earners within the Republican Party. When I did follow up with a bunch of members shortly after, there did not seem to be any appetite.

Of course, this would be a revenue generator, presumably. There was not a lot of appetite. I don't buy your comments of Trump pushing back or retracting his statements. I think that will be a very unpopular push in the Republican Party.

Brian Lehrer: A listener wants to follow up on one thing you said about if they do not extend the 2017 tax cut law, the listener notes that you said if they don't extend it, everyone will see an increase in their taxes. The listener writes, "Can we fact-check that? That doesn't sound right." I think you use the word everyone, but there is a line right below a certain amount people don't pay income taxes anyway. If you know, how far down the income spectrum did that tax cut apply to in the first time around?

Kadia Goba: That's a great question. I don't have details on that, but people will see, and I think I'm specifically channeling the working-class people. There will be a slight increase in taxes if those tax cuts aren't renewed. The whole point was that they were tax cuts for a certain portion. I can't give you a specific--

Brian Lehrer: [crosstalk] Yes, and I don't have the number either. I know I've seen many times that that tax cut on income taxes, in particular, did apply to most taxpayers. The reason we talk about it as a big tax cut for the rich is that that's where most of the tax cut spending, if we consider a tax cut spending, went. Because, obviously, if you're taking the same percentage more or less off the income of somebody who's earning $50,000 and somebody who's earning $5 million, it's going to be a much bigger giveaway to the person earning $5 million.

That's why most of the tax cuts go to wealthier Americans, and it gets framed that way. Progressives want the income tax to be progressive, literally, and so there's that. Getting back for a minute to the particular tax that you mentioned, the SALT tax deduction. Again, for people's background, state and local tax, SALT, deduction. It used to be that state and local income taxes were federally tax deductible either to an unlimited amount or to very high. They cap that on just $10,000 of state and local taxes being federally tax deductible. Certainly, people in our core listening area know that a lot of people in New York and New Jersey pay more than $10,000 just in property taxes if they're homeowners. Certainly, with state and maybe New York City or other county income taxes, they're paying a lot more than that in total. Used to be tax-deductible, now only up to $10,000. Mike Lawler, as you mentioned, and other mostly blue state, wealthier area members of Congress are adamant that they want that put back, or at least the cap raised to some degree. Is it clear to you at all where that's going?

Kadia Goba: Yes, members of this who have been pushing raising the cap, as you mentioned, members from New York, New Jersey, probably Connecticut, and California met yesterday, and it seemed very promising that they are going to raise the cap. Multiple members have said it will be higher than $25,000. Just to give you some insight there, but it's not clear, and I'm sure they don't want to negotiate through the press, so they're being a little tight-lipped about it. I will say that when an outlet broke or reported that they would raise it $25,000, a couple of members from those districts came out and said that is way too little.

I think that was a pointed statement because they could have just said nothing. I will make this point, though, to the previous caller. If the tax cuts are not expired or do expire, people who had an issue with the 10,000 cap, that's actually a good thing for them because they wouldn't have to abide by this 10,000. There would no longer be a $10,000 cap. I think for SALT people, it's probably a win for them if the tax bill falls off the cliff or if the tax deductions fall off a cliff.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. One other thing on SALT, are the progressives in Congress lined up for it just in case the Republicans need some Democratic votes, as they have in the past, to get budget bills through? AOC very famously has said that she is not for raising that cap because who benefits from a deduction on more than that much in state and local taxes? It's higher earners.

Now, I know a lot of other Democrats push back on that and say there are people who are very just plain middle class who pay that much in taxes, like seniors, for example, who don't make a workforce income anymore, but their homes are their main asset and those homes have value to the point over time that their property taxes exceed the cap. Is AOC for lifting the cap? Has she changed her position on that? If you know, if you've reported on her specifically or other progressives?

Kadia Goba: You're exactly right. Progressives have been-- This has been an unfavorable push for progressives. They don't agree. They think that this is for higher earners, but here's the deal. Reconciliation is a-- which will include the tax package-- is a party-line measure. Democrats are not going to vote for this bill anyway. They're not even in the conversation at this point.

Brian Lehrer: Republicans, when you say reconciliation, that's a technical term in Congress. What it comes down to is even with their very slim majorities, Republicans can pass this bill through the House and the Senate with no Democratic votes.

Kadia Goba: I'll tell you why. It's because the gift of reconciliation is that they don't have to pass the closure, which would require 60 votes in the Senate, which always means you have to bring along a couple of Democrats. They can just cross-pass this on a party line. Because there is a trifecta and Republicans have both the House and the Senate, they should have no problem passing a reconciliation package on their own. They don't even need Democrats, and they definitely don't need progressives.

Brian Lehrer: I'm going to take a couple of phone calls from people going back to the Medicaid cuts portion of the conversation that we had. Listeners, if you're just joining us, my guest is Kadia Goba, who covers Congress for Semafor. Different people want to bring up different ways that they think Medicaid could be cut without actually cutting benefits for eligible people. Karen in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, Karen

Karen: Good morning, Brian. You're such a treasure to the city. Thank you. Thank you to your guest. My mother received Medicaid prior to her passing last year, and I was the one fielding all her bills because she had Alzheimer's, and she was getting phone calls all the time when I was out of the House. There would be people who would talk her into accepting fraudulent devices that she needed, and they were risk guards that cost thousands of dollars. All these things get billed to Medicaid. If they want to save money and they have all these commissions, what about one to actually crack down on blatant fraud that's preying on seniors and their families?

Brian Lehrer: Karen, thank you very much. That goes, and I'll put that to Kadia, Karen, for you. Thank you for your call. It goes to the whole Elon Musk and DOGE thing overall. What they keep saying is we're cutting on waste, fraud, and abuse, although what it seems mostly they're cutting is programs that the Trump administration ideologically opposes. They have not been very specific at all to the public about saying, See this program, see that particular line, this much is actual waste. It's not going to the program itself, or this much is actually in fraud."

Karen is focusing on fraud. Kadia, tell me if you disagree, but it seems like waste, fraud, and abuse is a line. It's not where the money is actually coming from in these DOGE cuts that are slashing all kinds of federal funding. If they were to really go after fraud with a scalpel in Medicaid, they would certainly find something.

Kadia Goba: Yes, I think that's also an option into how they could chip away at some of the costs. Definitely. Obviously, having states pay a larger contribution has been floated as well. I don't think New York Republicans will go for that one either. Yes, certainly putting an effort into waste, fraud, and abuse would actually contribute. They are not clear as to where they want to go here. The talking points-- When I say the talking points, this is what they are saying. It has always been about able-bodied people. I think Republicans just see they could get a grasp of or a larger impact, and they attach it to able-bodied people and certainly undocumented people as well. That's just--

Brian Lehrer: That's a perfect segue to our next caller. Nicky in Belleville in Jersey, you're on WNYC. Hi, Nicky.

Nicky: Hi, Brian. So amazing to talk to you. We've been listening to you forever. I am a registered Democrat, not a Trump supporter at all, but one thing that does resonate with me is the fact that as a working-class person, immigrants get better insurance than I do, they get better benefits than I do, and I live proximate to New York. I saw as a sanctuary city, they got rental assistance, they received good medical assistance for free. How do I reconcile that where I'm paying for all of those services to someone that's not even documented? I have a real issue with that. That's one of the things I would support Trump on in terms of reducing that line item in the budget. I don't know if we could capture how much of that would be helpful, but I'm definitely looking for that to be reduced. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much, Nicky. Well, there's the purple area right there. Just the way she put it, I think, Kadia.

Kadia Goba: This is why people like Mike Lawler, when I call these things talking points, they are very comfortable going on the record saying that I am here to cut benefits to undocumented residents in the country or in my state. They understand that this resonates with voters. They have no problem going out on a limb, saying they're going to cut Medicaid or Medicaid benefits to those specific blocks. Yes, this is why they feel comfortable, and this is why they think it's a winning message and won't hurt them in the midterms.

Like I said before, this is all about how Democrats message that and also what the final bill looks like also. If they just don't target specific groups like undocumented immigrants. Yes, this is something that resonates with a lot of voters, especially when you look at New York City and the influx of undocumented citizens coming or residents coming in lately.

Brian Lehrer: We'll finish up after a break with a few more minutes with Kadia Goba, congressional correspondent for Semafor, and touch on one or two other things. Honestly, this budget section of the conversation expanded to much more of the segment than I thought we were going to spend on it, but that's what happens. It got really interesting, and you called on it and you texted on it, listeners. When we come back, we're going to finish up on a few other items, including an attempt in Congress to take back tariff power from the executive branch.

Did you know that the Constitution explicitly gives the power to impose tariffs to Congress, but President Trump is doing this mostly on his own? Why? Because Congress has given the executive branch that power over time. With all this chaos now and all the backlash over tariffs, are they about to take it back? That and a little bit more with Kadia right after this.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC. A few more minutes with Kadia Goba, Semafor's congressional correspondent. We've been talking about the federal budget. Next, we're going to talk about the New York City budget, at least the budget proposal for the next fiscal year in the city unveiled with a lot of new stuff from Mayor Adams yesterday. We're going to talk to First Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro.

Kadia, you reported on April 10th that Congressman Don Bacon, Republican from Nebraska, is gathering support for a proposal that would sunset in 60 days any tariff that lacks backing from Congress. Is that Republican proposal going anywhere as far as you can tell, given all the chaos and all the pain that the tariff policy seems to be causing?

Kadia Goba: Yes, this is such a complicated loop that we're experiencing right now. Essentially, Congress gave the executive branch Additional powers to basically levy other countries.

Brian Lehrer: May I jump in here and read Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which says, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts -- a word from the 18th century-- imposts, and excises." All of that includes tariffs. Then it adds, "But all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." That really said two things. One, states can impose them on their own, and also that Congress has the power, not the executive branch. That's an Article I power. What happened?

Kadia Goba: They gave the executive branch additional powers, and they can do that by claiming a national emergency and things of that nature. Now, some of them are probably regretting that position. To your point, whether Don Bacon's bill will go anywhere, Democrats don't think so. They actually think some of these gestures that Republicans have put forth to push back against tariffs aren't really-- They're just like talking points to go back to their local constituents and say, "Hey, I tried." I think what has a better chance is what Democrats have been putting forth.

They, again, are trying to do this. Gregory Meeks, a New Yorker, actually has a bill that is-- It's going to go through this phase which we call-- It's a little complicated, but essentially, if you let a bill ripen for a certain amount of days and you get enough 218 signatures, which would mean Democrats and a little bit of Republicans, you can actually push forward and put the bill on the table. Now, that would claw back some of the responsibilities that they gave the executive branch. Again, that would take about five really brave Republicans to say, "Trump has created a problem with these tariffs, and we need to claw back some of his responsibility."

Whether that happens is a whole different other story. I think, like I said at the beginning of the show, it all is dependent on what the economy does. If tariffs are becoming a real problem, then I think you're going to hear some members talk up, Republican members specifically push back against it. They could do it in the form of a discharge petition, which Democrats are trying to put forth.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing, Kadia, does Trump's polling around the 100-day mark change anything much in Congress? The reason people always say that Republicans in Congress lay down on Trump proposals so much, including not protecting, like we were just talking about, what's a prerogative of Congress not protecting congressional prerogatives over the executive branch, like Congress may have done in the past is that Trump is so popular in their districts, they think a lot of their voters would choose his priorities over theirs, and so they'd get primaried and thrown out of office.

He's underwater on everything except the border in multiple surveys that came out in the last week, including from Fox. Is this changing anything that you can see yet in Congress?

Kadia Goba: I think polling adds to some of the uncertainty that voters might have. I honestly think this is all going to boil down to how the economy responds to some of his policies.

Brian Lehrer: Kadia Goba. "It's the economy, stupid," as James Carville once said. Kadia Goba covers Congress for Semafor. Thank you for giving us so much time. We always appreciate when you come on.

Kadia Goba: Thanks for having me, Brian.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.