Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are bipartisan alternative budget proposals that claim to eliminate "non-taxpayer-beneficial" items proposed by Democrats?
Executive Summary
Bipartisan proposals to eliminate what critics call “non-taxpayer-beneficial” items range from process reforms that systematically identify waste to sweeping Republican tax-and-spending bills that cut programs Democrats defend; the most credible bipartisan approach centers on identification and streamlining rather than wholesale program elimination. Recent, diverse plans include the Bipartisan Policy Center’s fiscal blueprint emphasizing balanced tax increases and spending limits [1], Senate legislation to inventory wasteful programs via agency submissions [2] [3], and GOP tax packages that roll back specific Democratic policy credits and benefits [4] [5]. These proposals differ sharply on definitions, scope, and expected savings, and the Congressional Budget Office judged inventory legislation as having minimal near-term budgetary effect [6], while long-term macroeconomic claims vary widely across sponsor analyses [1] [5].
1. How policymakers define “non-taxpayer-beneficial” drives the debate and the proposed remedies
Proposals diverge immediately on what counts as “non-taxpayer-beneficial,” with bipartisan process bills framed around objective criteria and legislative packages driven by ideological priorities. The Identifying and Eliminating Wasteful Programs Act advances a procedural route: require agency Chief Operating Officers to compile lists of unnecessary, duplicative, or defunct programs under OMB guidance and include those lists in annual budget submissions, presenting a technocratic path to reform without specifying cuts [2] [3]. By contrast, GOP bills such as the One Big Beautiful Bill and related tax legislation explicitly target programs tied to Democratic priorities—nutrition assistance, Medicaid adjustments, green energy credits, and certain tax preferences—reflecting political choices rather than neutral criteria [4] [5]. Process-based measures lower partisan friction but may yield limited near-term savings, whereas politically explicit bills can yield larger headline savings but risk programmatic disruption and stronger partisan resistance.
2. The evidence on projected savings and macroeconomic effects is mixed and time-dependent
Analyses accompanying each proposal diverge on fiscal outcomes and economic effects, with the Bipartisan Policy Center projecting substantial long-run debt reduction and GDP gains through a balanced mix of revenues and cuts, claiming a reduction in debt-to-GDP from 99% to 59% by 2054 and large nominal GDP increases [1]. By contrast, CBO scoring for the Identifying and Eliminating Wasteful Programs Act finds minimal near-term fiscal impact, estimating administrative costs under $500,000 and little effect on outlays through 2028 [6]. Republican tax-and-repeal measures package immediate distributional and revenue effects—such as making 2017 TCJA provisions permanent and repealing green credits—but independent estimates differ on who benefits and whether long-term growth offsets revenue losses [4] [5]. Short-term accounting and long-term macroeconomic modeling produce different conclusions; supporters often rely on dynamic growth assumptions while nonpartisan scorers emphasize near-term budget score realism.
3. Political dynamics: bipartisan process bills offer compromise; partisan bills seek policy wins
Legislation framed as bipartisan and procedural—like the waste-identification act co-sponsored by Senators from both parties—can secure cross-aisle buy-in by promising transparency and systematic review without precommitted program eliminations, making it politically durable but limited in scope [2] [3]. By contrast, omnibus GOP measures and tax bills that explicitly eliminate or phase out programs associated with Democrats are designed to deliver policy wins and conservative priorities, including expanding enforcement and reshaping tax benefits [4] [5]. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Solutions Initiative operates as a centrist compromise, seeking to marry revenue increases with targeted cuts to protect investments said to grow the economy, signaling a third path that is policy-moderate but requires mutual concessions [1]. Each approach has trade-offs between immediate fiscal impact, political feasibility, and programmatic fairness.
4. Where independent scoring and partisan claims diverge—trust the process, not the promise
Independent scoring bodies like the CBO indicate that procedural reforms often yield transparency rather than big near-term savings, calling into question partisan claims of large immediate cuts from inventory-driven bills [6]. Conversely, partisan packages tout sweeping fiscal changes—permanent TCJA provisions, SALT cap changes, repeal of green credits—that materially reallocate tax burdens and spending priorities, but those claims depend on the elasticities and behavioral responses assumed in sponsor analyses [4] [5]. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s long-horizon projections should be read as scenario modeling that depends on sustained political will and implementation fidelity; big projected debt reductions require durable bipartisan agreement to enact both revenue increases and spending restraints.
5. Big-picture trade-offs and what’s often missing from public debate
Debate often omits the operational complexity of eliminating entrenched programs and the distributional consequences of removing targeted benefits: inventory lists do not automatically translate to cuts, and program eliminations can shift costs to states or vulnerable populations. Proposals focused on tax-code permanence or repeal—like those removing green credits or altering pass-through deductions—recast policy priorities in ways that reshape incentives for investment and equity [5]. The bipartisan policy blueprint warns that without structural entitlement reforms and tax-base adjustments, debt decline projections are tenuous [1]. Stakeholders and analysts must weigh administrative feasibility, transition costs, and distributional impacts, not just headline savings claims, when judging whether a line item is truly “non-taxpayer-beneficial.”