In a recent interview on "Fox News Sunday," Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) defended the inclusion of cuts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in exchange for aid to Israel, asserting that the House is focused on addressing its priorities. Despite concerns over the potential impact on the country's deficit, Johnson reiterated the importance of making strategic budget decisions.

"We're trying to take care of our priorities and we will," Johnson emphasized. "We know that these other important measures are right there on the table, and we're working through it hour by hour, day by day to meet those obligations, but we have to do these things in the proper order."

As one of his first significant policy actions, Speaker Johnson, alongside House GOP, unveiled a $14.3 billion aid package for Israel. To cover the cost, an equivalent amount would be cut from the IRS budget, a detail that has drawn criticism from House Democrats.

The bill was passed by the House in a 226-196 vote, largely divided along party lines, with 12 Democrats joining most Republicans in support. However, the opposition is expected to arise in the Senate, including some Republican leaders, and President Biden has indicated that he would veto the bill if it advanced through both chambers.

Johnson's approach diverges from President Biden's previous request to Congress for $105 billion in emergency funding, which included aid for Israel, Ukraine, border security operations, and allies in the Indo-Pacific region.

Fox News host Shannon Bream raised the concerns expressed by House Democrat Brendan Boyle (Penn.), who argued that Johnson's priorities favor "deficit-busting tax giveaways for the wealthy" rather than providing aid to Israel.

Responding to this criticism, Johnson pointed out the current national debt, standing at a staggering $33.6 trillion, and recent projections from the Treasury Department indicating a need to borrow over $1.5 trillion for government operations in the next six months.

"This is not a sustainable track," Johnson stated. "We can take care of our obligations, but we can do it in a responsible manner, and that's what we're committed to."

The clash over funding priorities highlights the ongoing debates between the two parties on how to allocate limited resources while addressing both domestic and global needs. As discussions continue, the outcome and potential compromises remain uncertain.