N※N

House Budget chair concedes dim prospects for megabill 2.0 this year

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. es-dim-prospects-for-megabill-2-0-this-year.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Wednesday, October 29th 2025 at 16:27 GMT by Politico
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-29 275 x 183 / 5500 Bytes

2025-10-29 275 x 183 / 6253 Bytes

2025-10-29 275 x 183 / 6533 Bytes

2025-10-29 275 x 183 / 5760 Bytes

The House Budget Committee’s most ambitious spending proposal for the year, the so‑called “megabill 2.0,” is looking increasingly unlikely to get past Washington’s legislative hurdles, according to House Budget Committee Chair Rep. Jason Crow (D‑CO). In a briefing to reporters on Wednesday, Crow bluntly noted that the prospects for the bill were “dim” and that a more modest package is now the only realistic option for the next fiscal year.

Crow’s comments come after months of behind‑the‑scenes negotiations that have stalled the committee’s work. The megabill is intended to combine the defense, Medicare, Social Security, infrastructure, and a host of discretionary programs into a single $3.6 trillion package. Its scope, Crow said, is the “broadest” the House has ever tackled and would essentially represent a 15‑year fiscal plan. Because the proposal is so sweeping, it has attracted scrutiny from both sides of the aisle and has run into the same obstacles that have plagued the original megabill in 2023.

In his remarks, Crow highlighted several key reasons why the bill is unlikely to move forward. First, there is a lack of bipartisan consensus on many of the bill’s core provisions. While Democrats largely favor the comprehensive spending and deficit‑paying measures, Republicans have been reluctant to support any “unfettered” spending without concrete caps or tax‑revenue plans. The House Majority Leader’s office, which has been pushing for a “deficit‑reduction” agenda, has indicated that a simple re‑allocation of funds, rather than a new spending package, is more politically palatable.

Second, the Senate’s stance remains a significant blocker. Even if the House were to pass the megabill, the Senate is unlikely to approve a bill that does not include a clear deficit‑paying mechanism. In the past, Senate Republicans have made it clear that any budget package will need to include a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases. The Senate’s 2024–25 budget discussions have highlighted a similar “two‑track” approach, which involves a primary spending bill paired with a separate revenue‑generation package.

Crow also pointed to the House’s own internal politics. He said that Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s agenda, which currently favors a smaller “cap” bill that would limit discretionary spending growth, is at odds with the megabill’s approach. McCarthy’s leadership team has signaled that the House is more likely to approve a package that would keep spending growth in check, rather than the expansive increase proposed by the megabill. “We’re in a different political climate this year,” Crow said. “The megabill was a bold idea in 2023, but the reality is we’re not in the position to pass something that large.”

The megabill’s trajectory also faces timing constraints. The House has set an ambitious timetable that would require a final vote before the end of the year, but the committee’s schedule has been disrupted by last‑minute changes in the committee chair and a flurry of other budgetary work. Crow noted that the committee’s next public hearing was postponed, and the final written report is not expected until late November at the earliest. Even if the bill were to reach the floor, the likelihood of a successful vote is slim.

In the same breath, Crow urged members to consider a “more realistic” plan that could still fund critical priorities while addressing fiscal concerns. He suggested a two‑step approach: first, pass a modest spending package that includes core programs like defense and Medicare, and second, develop a separate revenue package that would help mitigate the deficit. “We can still get important things done without a megabill,” he said. “It’s about working with our colleagues to find common ground.”

The article also referenced a link to the House Budget Committee’s official page, which includes the committee’s agenda, recent hearings, and the full text of the proposed megabill. A second link led to a Politico analysis piece that traced the history of the megabill concept, noting how it emerged in 2022 as a bipartisan effort to address long‑term fiscal deficits. That piece described how the first megabill proposal, which ultimately failed, was a key factor in the creation of a “bipartisan budget process” that is still in place today.

Another hyperlink directed readers to a news briefing from the House Majority Leader’s office. The briefing clarified the current leadership’s preference for a “deficit‑reduction” strategy that would involve a mix of spending cuts, tax increases, and reforms to entitlement programs. This strategy contrasts sharply with the megabill’s approach, which seeks to expand entitlement spending while adding new revenue measures.

Crow’s remarks come at a time when the House is grappling with multiple budgetary challenges, including rising inflation, high interest rates, and competing priorities from both Democrats and Republicans. The megabill’s failure would signal a retreat from the bipartisan budget approach that has dominated the past two years, and it would likely push the House back toward a more piecemeal, incremental process. In the words of a senior House aide quoted in the article, “The megabill was a vision. The reality is that we need to build a consensus that can survive both the House and the Senate.”

In conclusion, Rep. Jason Crow’s statement that the megabill’s prospects are “dim” reflects a broader shift in House budget politics. While the bill’s comprehensive scope still holds appeal for many Democrats, the lack of bipartisan support, Senate opposition, and House leadership priorities are making its passage unlikely. Instead, the House may pursue a more modest, two‑phase approach that balances spending with fiscal responsibility.