Rep. Bryan Steil says House budget bill is ‘unquestionably a step in the right direction’

Last week, House Republicans passed a major budget bill that would make sweeping changes to tax revenue and spending in the federal government. But Wisconsin legislators are at odds about whether the so-called “big, beautiful bill,” as it stands, is right for the country.

The changes contained in the bill include funding cuts and new eligibility requirements for federal programs like food assistance and Medicaid, eliminating taxes on cash tips and overtime pay, and an increase to the national debt ceiling. 

The legislation passed by just one vote in the House — among supporters were Republican Rep. Bryan Steil, whose district includes Racine and Kenosha. Now, the bill awaits action in the Senate. 

As is, the bill would add trillions to the federal deficit, according to an independent analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That has some Senate Republicans, like Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, vowing to oppose the bill unless it cuts more spending.

Steil agreed with Johnson’s general sentiment, but the House member thinks the budget bill is still worth supporting.

“I think we’re going to have to continue to look at additional savings to make sure that we get our spending under control,” Steil told WPR’s “Wisconsin Today.” “But this bill, as drafted, is unquestionably a step in the right direction.”

“Wisconsin Today” host Rob Ferrett talked with Steil about the details of the House bill and his reaction to Johnson’s opposition.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity

Rob Ferrett: Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson has been critical of the bill. He told Jake Tapper on CNN that it doesn’t do enough to reduce the deficit. Do you agree?

Rep. Bryan Steil: I would agree that I think we have a broader and further opportunity to continue our work to get spending under control. That said, I do believe this bill is a step in the right direction. It doesn’t accomplish as much as many of us want, but that’s sometimes how the negotiations play out. So we’ll see how the Senate amends and adjusts this bill before we’ll ultimately get a second vote on it prior to it becoming law.

RF: I talked to your Democratic colleague Rep. Gwen Moore from Milwaukee, who made the case that extending those 2017 tax cuts is the big deficit booster. What do you say to that angle of criticism?

BS: I think as we look at the tax provisions, what we really see is a continuation of the tax policy that was set in place in 2017. When the Democrats had full control, they decided not to alter the tax policy. And what we’re doing is really doubling down on that and not putting forward a tax increase on the American people. 

RF: The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the distributional impact of the whole package and found that under the bill, the poorest households in the U.S. would see their resources drop, but the wealthiest households would see their resources increase. Come election time, Democrats may point to that as a giveaway to the rich at the expense of the poor. What is your response to that?

BS: It’s nothing new to hear class warfare arguments coming from the left at a period of time where we’re trying to grow the economy. And this bill has increases of deductions for seniors up to $75,000. So making sure that we’re focused on hardworking families is the ultimate goal. 

I think what we saw, if we look back when these tax policies were originally put in place in 2017, was significant growth in the economy. In particular, real wages rising for the least amongst us. We saw actually high wage growth — in particular for Blacks or Hispanics, for Asians, women and veterans — above the median. That’s all positive. And so doubling down on these tax policies and making sure that we are allowing individuals to see their real wages rise is the end result that I think we’ll see when these tax policies are put into place. 

RF: What do you think of what came out of this bill when it comes to Medicaid and how could it impact Wisconsin?

BS: There’s a lot of fear mongering on this topic, and so I think it’s important to drill down as to what changes were made. What changes were made was primarily putting in place work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults of working age, saying that if you are on the state-funded or the state- and federal-funded program, we want to make sure that you’re working or looking for work in a process to earn benefits. 

That’s not true, of course, where we’re strengthening the program that was originally designed for children, pregnant women and permanently disabled adults. There are no changes for those groups. There are changes in making sure that we’re helping lift people up into good- and better-paying jobs and into self-sustainability. Far too often, we analyze our social safety net programs simply by their inputs — how much money we’re spending. I’m of the belief we should be measuring them also by their outputs. How are we doing in helping people live out a healthy life? And I think these work requirements actually move us in the right direction, making sure we’re protecting the program for those it’s truly designed for. 

RF: Wisconsin policymakers might be concerned that some of these costs that are now currently handled by the federal government, like food assistance, are going to get offloaded to the state. What would you say to them?

BS: Nationally, by having a fully federally funded program, a lot of states began to very poorly manage the SNAP program [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]. This is all about strengthening the programs for those that they’re truly designed for. So a 5 percent cost shift from the federal government to the states — what that does is have states have some skin in the game. Wisconsin, on the whole, does a reasonably good job. Our error rate is reasonably low, although there’s still room for improvement to make sure that the federal government, or taxpayer dollars writ large, are not being unnecessarily spent.