Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt set the standard in his legislation-packed 100 Days, most new presidents have considered a fast start as essential to their long-term success.

President-elect Donald Trump is no exception, seeking quick congressional action on “one big, beautiful bill” that will “Secure our Border, Unleash American Energy, and Renew the (2017) Trump Tax Cuts.”

The always faithful House Speaker Mike Johnson promptly set a target of passing a comprehensive package through the House by April and putting the final version on Trump’s White House desk by Memorial Day.

That schedule seems quite ambitious, given the many issues involved and the minuscule, sometimes unruly House Republican majority.

Besides, not all congressional Republicans are aboard Johnson’s one-car express. Some senators and members of tax-writing committees called for dividing the package in two, noting how long it usually takes to work out the details on complicated tax bills

Trump, typically, then said that would be OK — as long as lawmakers act quickly.

But even if the Republicans can keep their troops in line long enough to get something passed, history has this warning: Fast may not necessarily be Good.

A look at recent presidencies shows that some efforts to set the tone with a speedy pace were more successful initially than ultimately.

Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden both sought and achieved early successes designed to fix the economic woes they inherited. Both suffered some long-term problems as a result.

Less than a month after taking office, Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $787 billion economic package of tax cuts and spending provisions to speed recovery from a deep recession and prevent another one.

And in less than two months, Biden signed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan combining direct checks to individuals with extended unemployment benefits and expanded child tax credits.

But in retrospect, many economists concluded that, although Obama’s bill helped end the recession, it was insufficient to produce a speedy enough recovery.

That influenced Biden’s decision to push a measure more than twice as big to accelerate the rebound from the 2020 COVID pandemic. He succeeded, despite some warnings it was too big; those warnings proved prescient, as its size contributed to the post-pandemic inflation that was a major factor in the 2024 Democratic defeat.

Their experiences show that an early political and economic boost is not the only important thing; so too is the long-term economic and political fallout.

Before Trump weighed in with his desire for a single bill, and Johnson adopted it as a House goal, congressional Republicans were planning to divide the new president’s program into two legislative parts.

The first, more easily passed, would deal with the immigration problem and accelerate domestic energy production. The second, more complex, would make permanent the tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025 but add some new reductions Trump advocated during the campaign.

But proposals to exempt all Social Security income from taxes and eliminate the limit on deductibility of state and local taxes face some Republican opposition because of their potential impact on the federal deficit.

Hardline conservatives, like those who initially withheld their votes from re-electing Johnson as speaker, want to offset any new tax cuts with spending reductions which would inevitably hit domestic health, education and welfare programs that more moderate Republicans may be reluctant to cut.

Indeed, the cost of making the 2017 reductions permanent would be $4 trillion over the next decade, though many Republicans argue it won’t add any new costs because it is already part of the budget.

Republicans hope to do all of this within the budget procedure, which provides for approval first of a resolution setting tax and spending parameters and then of a “reconciliation” bill carrying them out. By using that procedure, as both parties have done in the past, the GOP could bypass the Senate’s usual 60-vote requirement and pass the measures with the votes of only Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47 and the House 219-215.

But while House rules would enable Republicans to pass their package without allowing amendments, that’s not true in the Senate.

And before senators can even vote, the Senate’s Parliamentarian would have to rule that its various sections are germane to the budget resolution.

Even if Republican leaders can pass a comprehensive Trump bill, they face three other legislative challenges in the early months of his term. They are:

1. Confirmation of Trump’s nominees. While most will likely be confirmed, there could be battles over some of his more controversial choices if four GOP senators join the Democrats in opposition.

2. Funding the federal government. Because current funding expires March 15, Congress needs to extend it until the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. Inevitably, Johnson will again need some Democratic votes, further angering hardline GOP conservatives.

3. At some point, lawmakers will have to extend, scrap or suspend the legal limit on the national debt, which is now well below the actual debt — $35.4 trillion. That too will require Democratic votes since some Republicans always oppose it.

The small GOP majorities, especially in the House, mean Republican leaders may struggle to pass every major measure. Packaging Trump’s top proposals into one bill won’t change that.

_____

©2025 The Dallas Morning News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.