01 Jul One Big Beautiful Bill Act?
Oh, it’s an act all right—in more ways than one—as discussed below. And it undoubtedly is big. So, yes, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as crafted by congressional Republicans at the request of their leader in the White House, indeed is a big act.
Whether there is anything beautiful about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act* is the real question.
*By the way, the euphemistic title of this bill reminds me of Joe Biden’s proposed (but unpassed) 2022 “Build Back Better Act,” which I critiqued here. President Biden that same year also advanced the even-more-misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” (which did pass). Part of me is surprised that the 2025 bill’s main booster, a former beauty pageant owner who, like me, is a big fan of 1970s music, didn’t instead name it “My Girl Bill” after the 1974 Jim Stafford hit song.
Today’s blog post will judge the gorgeousness of it all.
Looking Inside
It often is said that beauty comes from within. Therefore, in evaluating the true beauty of this “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” let’s look at what is at its heart.
At its heart is Donald Trump’s campaign promises of (1) extending the 2017 tax cuts, (2) eliminating what he considers waste, and (3) spending more on immigration control and the military.
There are two ways to look at the tax cuts. One is that they will be a $4-5 trillion gift to taxpayers over ten years, with the primary recipients being “rich corporations” and “rich people.” The other viewpoint is that the tax cuts will increase business investment and generally spur the economy, to the benefit of nearly all Americans. Proposals to eliminate taxes on tips, Social Security income, and overtime also would help some taxpayers.
Even considering GDP growth, however, and the extra tax revenues economic growth will produce, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the tax cuts alone will increase the national debt by more than $2 trillion (on top of the $21 trillion that the debt already is expected to increase over the next ten years, and further on top of the $36 trillion it is now).
Deficit budgets and the resulting national debt are ugly, not beautiful, as this blog long has pointed out here, here, and, most recently, here. In short, with the burgeoning debt and today’s higher interest rates, we are paying over $1 trillion a year in interest on the debt alone! Let that sink in for a minute.
But, why won’t the second BBB feature—elimination of excess spending—make up for the loss in tax revenue? For one thing, the biggest spending cuts being proposed are for Medicaid payments, and those cuts would save the federal government “only” $850 billion, which is a fraction of the size of the forgone tax revenue. Under this highly controversial spending cut, some seven million or more people who receive Medicaid coverage for health care will no longer receive it. Millions of these people are “able bodied” or “illegal immigrants,” and others can get insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, so strong arguments can be made that these cuts are as justified as they are necessary. But, to put it in health care terms, they are a bandage on a broken leg.
The third inner component of the BBB relates to immigration control costs and military spending, both of which would be increased. While these are less controversial, they also will worsen budget deficits and add to the national debt.
The bottom line is that this BBB is no Miss USA, especially when looking on the inside.
It’s All an Act, Really
What bothers me most about the machinations surrounding the One Big Beautiful Act is that, like so much in politics today, there is way too much being said and done just for show. We live in a world of performative politics, and the BBB is just one example.
For their part, Democrats in Congress universally oppose the bill for adding to the deficit. What they are trying to do is show how “concerned” they are about the national debt. Right; like they wouldn’t add even more to the national debt if they were drafting and approving the budget. Out of the other side of their mouths, the Democrats complain loudly about every single spending “cut” (or even reductions in scheduled increases) as if the cut will ruin the lives of every child, poor person, and hard worker in America. Regarding the tax cuts, Democrats pretend to be outraged about rich people getting most of that reward, without acknowledging that, mathematically speaking, this stands to reason. The higher one’s income is, the higher the related taxes (and thus tax cuts) are in raw dollars. Democrats also loudly deny the truth that non-rich tax payers also will benefit proportionally and through a stronger economy.
Republican members of Congress are no better. They act like they are strengthening our defense capabilities, enhancing border control, and reining in entitlements—especially payments to “illegals” and “lazy people,” when most of the budget changes are insufficient to do any of that. Most of all, they give lip service to reducing the debt, while in reality they continue to add trillions of dollars to it. Do they address Social Security and Medicare, which is the best way to lower the debt? No. Do they cut spending other than the specific political targets of the president and his MAGA political base? Not much.
The acting does nothing to beautify this not-so-lovely bill or our country.
Written by Quentin R. Wittrock, founder of Principle Based Politics.
Look for his periodic posts and Extremely Non-Extreme podcasts, as Quentin (and his podcast guests) will explore and promote the idea of principle in politics.
Principle Based Politics does not endorse or support any particular political candidate or party.
Gary Russell
Posted at 00:01h, 02 JulyAhh, yes. Different administration, same storyline. The usual Revenue vs. Spending arguments with “funny math” and both sides pointing fingers.
The deficit/debt issues fall on deaf ears except for using them as a rallying cry. Don’t get me wrong…I believe the house and senate members who raise the issue with their threatened “no” votes are sincere, even though we blast them as obstructionists. For example, I truly believe that Rand Paul cares. However, outside of a small group of principled voters, WE don’t care. Not really…because it’s perceived as a “non-issue”. Nobody’s life is materially altered day to day on it.
People *feel* higher gas, egg and home prices. They *feel* entitlements and occasionally even *feel* a strong defense – as was indicated in the recent Iran bombing. (Now everyone will be ok with the proposed DoD increases; interesting timing). But until we can “feel” the debt’s impacts, it will continue to be the proverbial wolf cry.
Russell M Weaver
Posted at 14:52h, 02 JulyYour main theme regarding the Democrat’s position on the economy, is that “trickle down economics” doesn’t work. Well, duh, if it worked, why isn’t it still the prevailing theory of current economists? My position is that “trickle down economics” is like feeding bread crumbs to the masses while. the top one percent is gorging on most expensive food on the planet.
I have another novel idea. Why not increase revenue by NOT renewing the tax cuts? The MAGA’s are crying crocodile tears over the possibility of restoring tax rates in effect prior the Trump’s ascendance to the throne. That way, millions of people won’t lose health care as defined in the BBB.
Political wonks should read history to see what happens when the masses do, when they are fed bread crumbs. Hopefully, unlike the past, the coining revolution will be at the ballot box — IF our democracy isn’t destroyed the the current administration. I am heart sick by Trump’s latest move to make voting more difficult.
Trudy Johnson
Posted at 17:26h, 02 JulyI appreciate how you discuss both sides – I always learn something from your writings. Thank you Quentin!
As a fiscal conservative, there are one or two things I do like in the HUGE, UGLY BILL, but HATE HATE HATE that so many people believed DT and all these politicians that ran on “NOT adding too, but REDUCING” our national debt. Jokes on all of us yet again – my biggest gripe with this bill!
I do appreciate how able bodies humans are being reigned in to not automatically receive Medicaid coverage. There has to be more vetting while keeping it accessible for those that qualify and truly need it.
I tend to agree with Russell – most of the middle class are really sick of being thrown a few crumbs. I have worked my entire career for those of great wealth and believe me – they don’t need anymore! The largest tax cuts for the wealthy has me fuming – I’ve seen so many golden parachute fat cats just get thicker and I know a few starving mice that are working hard to get ahead but face a pretty stacked deck. Trickle Down Economics – UMMM – not sold on it.
Darren Knight
Posted at 01:10h, 03 JulyThe BBB is far from perfect. I don’t think anyone knows what the impact will be. Our folks in Congress have been foolish for decades. I have a theory that those who get elected–have the ability to get elected–but lack good judgment, wisdom and discernment. Not just some of them–most of them are below average in the wisdom department because so much of their brainpower is consumed by self-interest. Now, I’m going to veer off a bit and consider the risks we all face with an apparent shift towards ever getting bigger government. Eventually the giant deficit will lead to failure. Neither party is willing to confront the problem. The rise of absolute fools like Newsom in CA or the candidate for mayor of NYC, a socialist/neo-communist, are much more dangerous than Orange Man. Many of you should temper your hatred or distaste of Trump and understand that the leftist creep is probably much worse. An economic crisis could lead to a charasmatic idiot, like Newsom, (who I call Vlad the Impaler–permanent tan–scary white teeth–widows peak–lots of charisma–great talker–and dumber than the BS he spits out) , taking over a huge government apparatus and dictating the nonsense that makes people flee NYC and CA. The crazy irony is that many of these folks leave these places of overbearing government, because they can afford to, and then vote for the same party in the state they move to. Regardless, if the GOP does not find another charismatic counter to some rising from the leftists, we run the risk of jerking hard left in a very few years. Sadly, the BBB is not limited government, but the dems approach is even worse. All of you that think us limited government types are not “nice” or “empathetic”–are terribly wrong. We are the good guys. Venezuela is the exact opposite of what you want. Be careful what you wish for. And, I’m not an alarmist on this point. Good Luck.
Gary Russell
Posted at 13:50h, 03 JulyDarren is right on the “limited Gov’t” aspect. If we REALLY constrained our spending to what the federal Gov’t was supposed to be before, all the politicians that accomplished this would be labeled as “extreme”. We have strayed so far from this that most people’s head would explode if you told them what this really meant. Two words that opened the door are “public good”. As soon as that door was opened, both parties slammed through it and now we can’t pull back.