It’s Simply Not Adding Up
It seems that ignoring studied facts about the effects of Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” is not enough.
The White House, House Speaker Mike Johnson and their colleagues are selling a misleading story about its financial effects.
Even to lay citizens not enmeshed in the details of the bill, proposals to cut about $160 billion in federal spending and tighten Medicaid eligibility so that MAGA can make permanent $4 trillion towards tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy and corporations doesn’t seem to add up.
But both Johnson, who is promoting the bill as it starts its Senate review, and the White House argue that the independent Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to price out such bills, political opponents and economists are flat wrong. The difference, they say, is that the country’s economy will boom in the next years, and that any missing money to cover the cost of rising deficits will come from industrial growth.
Those rosy views of growth don’t account for global disruptions from tariff policy that seem to be depressing growth or even the certainty that would allow for the kind of investments Trump seeks. They don’t seem to count global oil price fluctuations or worsening climate remediation or worldwide migrant movements.
However expected or predictable this kind of political truth-stretching, real people undoubtedly will be hurt by the intended budget cuts, and there seems little about that entering the Republicans’ sales job. Indeed, enough Senate Republicans are raising questions of their own about the numbers that the outcome for this bill — which passed the House by a single Republican vote — is in doubt.
Debate on a variety of issues and Senate maneuvering will continue over the next couple of weeks, likely followed by relatively endless sessions to define a variety of compromises to keep a Republican majority intact, but Team Trump wants a positive vote by July 4. Among the issues is a parliamentary question about whether this bill even qualifies to be considered on a majority vote rather than the normally required 60-vote margin.
The good news is only that so far it is all a combination of media spin to support Trump without questions, to use pressure about reelection backing, along with some image bashing and ridicule. But senators are not being bodily threatened for their votes. No one is claiming emergency powers to eliminate Congress or take flamethrowers to make their point. Still, we don’t deserve to be treated by our own government as dolts.
If you push for tax cuts, explain how the resulting debt will go away. What could be more straightforward? Why deny the math? At stake, of course, are not only questions about budget and money for Trump’s major programs, but significant issues over consolidating all Washington power in the White House — and electoral politics.
Number Disputes and More
Beyond the multiple number of disputed financial issues, we keep learning about clauses hidden in the 1100 pages that could affect unrelated legal issues. For example, there is a provision, not defined, that bars courts from enforcing a contempt of court finding against the White House, just the kind of issue arising from legal challenges on immigration and tariffs. Or another that effectively blocks courts from enforcing injunctions unless challengers pay a bond at the start of their challenge.
But more concern in the Senate is focused on claims by the bill’s promoters that run afoul of basic financial impact questions. As The New York Times headline on a fact-checking article about the bill read, “Trump and his allies are selling his domestic policy bill with false claims.“
As the article outlines, Team Trump spokesmen are dismissing the effects on boosting the national debt as incorrect and described cuts that will eliminate 8 million Americans from Medicaid eligibility as pursuit of waste and abuse, not a cut to health spending.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insists that there has been no inflation since Trump’s inauguration. Office of Management and Budget director Russell T. Vought says that there will be no deficit or any harm to the nation’s health by dropping millions from coverage.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the debt will grow by $3.8 trillion over 10 years, with $1 trillion, trends, if not numbers, mirrored in various other economic analyses. This has spawned a White House attack on the validity of that agency’s numbers and its historical accuracy. All parties agree that events like Covid or a banking collapse can throw off growth estimates. Multi-billionaire Elon Musk called the bill a “disgusting abomination” for “massively increasing the already gigantic” national debt.
The Speaker repeated on weekend talk shows that “We are not cutting Medicaid,” repeating what Trump has said. Of course, they are cutting eligibility for Medicaid, which in turn, will affect rural hospitals and states left with paying for what the feds will not.
We’re advised to watch the behaviors of a half-dozen Republican senators including Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who is standing up against Medicaid cuts, Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who wants all spending rolled back to pre-Covid levels, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, Tom Tillis, R-N.C., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., all of whom argue that the numbers simply don’t add up. Sen. Joanie Ernst, R-Iowa, has won the Cruella de Ville nomination for the month by insisting (twice) that we shouldn’t worry about any deaths from Medicaid cuts because we’re all going to die anyway.
Of course, Trump wants to add spending as well in his 2026 budget — large amounts for border and mass deportation enforcement, new military weapons systems, the start of a missile defense “dome,” and increased money for space exploration.
If you’re a government skeptic, this is a debate you may want to tune in on.
“FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY, IT IS DEMOCRACY.” – Walter Cronkite. CLICK HERE to donate in support of our free and independent voice.
