Senators Ted Cruz and Tim Scott want the Treasury Department to unilaterally approve a $200 billion tax cut without congressional authorization. That's not how the Constitution works, but it's apparently how some lawmakers think government should operate when their party controls the executive branch.
The proposal, reported by The Hill, centers on regulatory changes to tax rules that would allegedly stimulate economic growth. The senators argue that Treasury has the administrative authority to implement these changes through rule-making, bypassing the need for legislation.
Let's be clear about what's at stake here. The Constitution grants Congress—not the executive branch—the power of the purse. Tax policy is supposed to be debated, amended, and voted on by elected representatives. That's separation of powers 101. What Cruz and Scott are proposing is an end-run around that framework.
The precedent implications are significant. If Treasury can authorize a $200 billion tax cut via administrative action, what's to stop future administrations from doing the same—or reversing it just as unilaterally? Tax policy would become subject to the whims of whoever controls the White House, with no legislative input required. That's a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.
The specific tax provisions haven't been fully detailed, but the magnitude is stunning. $200 billion is real money, even by federal budget standards. That's roughly 3% of annual federal revenue. To put it in context, the entire IRS budget is around $14 billion. This isn't a minor regulatory tweak—it's a massive fiscal policy shift.
Proponents argue that tax cuts spur economic growth, which generates offsetting revenue. That's trickle-down economics, a theory with mixed empirical support. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced corporate rates from 35% to 21% and was supposed to pay for itself through growth. It didn't. Federal deficits exploded, exceeding $1 trillion annually even before the pandemic.
The timing is also curious. The US economy is operating near full employment, inflation remains above target, and the Federal Reserve has been raising interest rates to cool demand. Injecting $200 billion in stimulus via tax cuts now would be adding fuel to an overheating engine. That's the opposite of prudent macroeconomic management.
From a fiscal perspective, the federal deficit is already ballooning. The Congressional Budget Office projects deficits of $2 trillion+ annually over the next decade under current law. Adding $200 billion in tax cuts without offsetting revenue or spending cuts would worsen that trajectory. Investors are already nervous about US debt sustainability—this won't help.
There's also a political dimension. If Cruz and Scott believe tax cuts are good policy, they should draft legislation, build a coalition, and pass it through Congress. That's how democracy works. Asking Treasury to do it administratively suggests they either lack the votes or don't want to be on record supporting a controversial measure.
The legal question is whether Treasury even has the authority to do what the senators are asking. Tax regulations must be based on existing statutory authority. Treasury can interpret ambiguous provisions, but it can't invent new tax cuts out of whole cloth. If this proposal goes forward, expect lawsuits—lots of them.
This isn't partisan. The principle of congressional control over taxation applies regardless of which party holds power. If a Democratic administration tried to raise taxes by $200 billion via Treasury regulation, Republicans would rightly scream about executive overreach. The same standard should apply here.
The numbers don't lie, but politicians sometimes forget that constitutional constraints exist for a reason. Tax policy should be made by Congress, not by administrative fiat. If Cruz and Scott want a $200 billion tax cut, they should legislate it. Otherwise, they're asking for a dangerous expansion of executive power that could haunt them when the other party takes control.
