This concurrent resolution establishes the non-binding spending targets for Fiscal Year 2025 through 2034 and directs congressional committees to propose legislative changes to reduce the deficit and address the debt limit.
Jodey Arrington
Representative
TX-19
This concurrent resolution establishes the official, non-binding spending targets and revenue goals for the U.S. Government for Fiscal Years 2025 through 2034. It directs congressional committees to propose specific legislative changes to meet deficit reduction targets and raise the debt limit over the next decade. Furthermore, the bill sets procedural rules, centralizing authority with Budget Committee Chairs to manage compliance and adjust allocations based on economic baselines. Finally, the House section outlines a policy commitment to achieving economic growth through deregulation and significant cuts to mandatory federal spending.
| Party | Total Votes | Yes | No | Did Not Vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Democrat | 258 | 0 | 256 | 2 |
Republican | 273 | 267 | 4 | 2 |
Independent | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Congress Sets $2 Trillion Mandatory Spending Cut Goal Over 10 Years, Triggering Massive Policy Fight
This Congressional Budget Resolution sets the financial blueprint for the U.S. government for fiscal year 2025 and sketches out the spending goals all the way through 2034. Think of this as the biggest, most detailed financial plan Congress can pass, detailing expected revenue, spending limits (outlays and budget authority), and projected national debt levels for the next decade (Sec. 1101).
What’s immediately clear is that this isn't just about setting numbers; it's about forcing major policy changes. The resolution issues formal “reconciliation directives” to nearly every committee in Congress, requiring them to draft legislation that either cuts the deficit or, in a few cases, allows for controlled spending increases. The biggest instruction? A massive, collective goal to reduce mandatory spending—the stuff that runs on autopilot like Social Security and Medicare—by at least $2,000,000,000,000 over the 10-year window (Sec. 5002).
The $2 Trillion Savings Mandate: Who Pays?
This $2 trillion target is the financial equivalent of a ticking clock. Most committees are tasked with finding huge savings. For example, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is instructed to cut the deficit by at least $880 billion through changes in its jurisdiction, which covers everything from healthcare to environmental regulations. The House Education and Workforce Committee must find at least $330 billion in savings (Sec. 2001).
If you rely on federal programs, this is where you need to pay attention. If Congress fails to meet the $2 trillion savings goal through these committee cuts, the resolution includes a penalty mechanism: the Budget Committee Chair must automatically reduce the spending instructions given to the powerful Ways and Means Committee by the exact amount of the shortfall (Sec. 4001). This procedural hammer means that the cuts will happen one way or another, even if the committees tasked with the reforms drag their feet. For regular people, this means every federal program—from student aid to housing assistance—is now on the chopping block to contribute to that $2 trillion goal.
The Deregulation Push: Less Red Tape, More Risk?
Beyond the raw numbers, the resolution includes strong policy statements from the House advocating for sweeping deregulation (Title V). They argue that federal rules have become too costly and burdensome, hurting economic growth. To push this agenda, the resolution creates a “Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to government deregulation” (Sec. 3002). This fund allows the Senate Budget Chair to fast-track legislation that cuts red tape, but only if the bill is certified as being deficit-neutral. For a small business owner, this could mean less paperwork and faster approvals. For consumers, however, the policy statements explicitly support cutting regulations to boost energy production and economic growth, which historically can lead to less oversight in areas like environmental protection or consumer finance.
The Budget Chair Gets the Keys to the Kingdom
One of the most significant, if wonky, takeaways is the massive authority granted to the Chairs of the House and Senate Budget Committees (Title III, Title IV). These Chairs are given the power to adjust budget allocations, enforce compliance with the $2 trillion savings goal, and decide if legislation qualifies for the various reserve funds (like the one protecting Medicare/Medicaid or the one for deregulation). They become the ultimate gatekeepers of the budget process, deciding whether a bill meets the criteria to move forward without being derailed by procedural challenges. For example, the Chair can adjust the budget numbers to reflect a new tax policy only if it doesn't increase the deficit (Sec. 3004). This centralization of power means that the successful implementation of this 10-year plan hinges almost entirely on the procedural decisions made by two people.
What About the Big Programs?
While the goal is to cut $2 trillion from mandatory spending, the resolution also sets up a “Deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to protecting Medicare and Medicaid” (Sec. 3005). This fund allows budget adjustments for legislation aimed at strengthening these programs—but again, only if the changes are paid for and do not increase the deficit over the 10-year period. This sets up a serious tension: Congress is simultaneously mandated to find massive savings and maintain deficit neutrality for any protective measures. The projected costs for Medicare (Sec. 1102) are set to grow substantially, from $952 billion in new budget authority in 2025 to over $1.6 trillion by 2034, making the required cuts elsewhere in the budget even harder to find.