Let's Make a Deal

Since his swearing-in in January 2023, U.S. Representative Nick LaLota hasn’t faced a series of votes that rivaled the recent domestic spending package, which he played a significant role in pushing through Congress and onto President Donald Trump’s desk. It gave him a notable win: He proudly says he delivered on his promise to 1st District voters that he would get a reprieve on the federal government’s cap on the state and local tax deduction, or SALT. Ultimately, that’s true, with an asterisk.

But it’s fair for voters to ask: At what price? Did a single-minded focus on this goal really pay off, in the end, for his constituents when the entire balance sheet is calculated?

First, the asterisk. The $10,000 cap on SALT went into effect in 2018, under Trump’s first administration. LaLota and several other New York legislators, the so-called SALT Caucus, scored a victory when the House of Representatives version of the domestic package included an increase in the SALT cap to $40,000, permanently.

When the Senate sought to reverse that measure, then floated a compromise that would sunset its effect in 2029, LaLota stood firm, telling the website Axios, “I need 40k for my constituents, and it has to be 40k forever,” and vowing to vote against a package that came up short. At one point, he even floated the idea of allowing a reduction in the top tax rate to expire, using the income from the wealthiest taxpayers to offset the expense of lifting the SALT cap on the middle class.

Ultimately, he caved. That’s not necessarily surprising: Considering his own party, and president, have fiercely embraced the SALT cap, getting anything in the end was notable. And it allowed him to loudly declare victory: An email blast on July 2 announced “$5,016 in Immediate Tax Relief for Long Island Families.” Hard to say no to thousands of dollars in savings, right?

But that figure, which came from Bloomberg, was based on a couple earning $250,000 annually — the actual benefit for most 1st District families, particularly in the eastern portion of the district, will be lower. (And anyone making $500,000 or more is exempt.) Meanwhile, those savings are temporary: The cap will expire in 2029, which will be here in the blink of an eye. Because the package makes Trump tax cuts permanent and the elevated SALT cap temporary, LaLota or his successor won’t have the leverage to see the SALT cap increase extended four years from now — neither national party has any interest in the cause. The benefit will fizzle out, and Suffolk County residents will be left holding the bag again. In the end, the SALT Caucus, including LaLota, gave up the best opportunity they will ever have to deliver permanent relief.

Meanwhile, there’s the cost of accepting the “compromise.” LaLota also touted the final bill as delivering “Deficit Reduction Without Touching Social Security or Medicare” — a deft sleight-of-hand, considering that the Congressional Budget Office projects that the domestic package is estimated to add more than $3 trillion to the national debt, quite the opposite of “deficit reduction.” And while Medicare and Social Security weren’t affected, the CBO estimates that nearly 12 million people will be without health insurance by 2034 due to the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act marketplace. A statewide coalition, Medicaid Matters New York, says that about 35,000 children covered by Medicaid or Child Health Plus in the 1st District could lose health care coverage.

This isn’t partisan distortion. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced he would not stand for reelection after he came under fire from Trump for pointing out the bill would require his state to make up for more than $30 billion in lost federal funding.

The bill also gives more funding for the deportation and imprisonment of immigrants. Trump had pledged to deport criminals, but ICE has been rounding up immigrants at workplaces and deporting visa holders and green card holders who entered the country legally. ICE doesn’t need more money. It needs to refocus its efforts on actual threats.

Then there are the $9 billion in cuts to USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, including the “clawing back” of money previously allocated. LaLota was one of two Republicans who had refused to support this measure in June — until a well-publicized conversation on the floor with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, after which LaLota joined a fellow Republican congressman in flipping the necessary two votes to get it passed. Who knows what LaLota and Johnson talked about, but it’s not a stretch to assume a promise to reach that ultimate compromise on SALT was what led LaLota to abandon federal spending on public television and radio, which are popular with so many of his constituents.

Between now and the midterms in 2026, there will be much conversation about this “Big, Beautiful Bill” and the historic way it remade so much of the federal government and how it is funded. In the 1st District, voters have to parse the numbers closely and decide if the tax savings they see really is a great deal, considering just how much has been lost.