What’s in Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” nearing a final vote in the Senate

What’s in Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” nearing a final vote in the Senate

https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-172443427.html

My City Just Voted for Socialism

“So what does Mamdani actually want to institute, if elected in November, and why would it suck so much?

Consider free childcare, which his canvassers seemed to believe would be persuasive to me as I walked past them last night with my 2-year-old. Under Mamdani, the state would provide childcare—via taxpayer-funded daycares, akin to the universal 3K program currently in place (which doesn’t always provide parents with options they actually want)—for all aged six weeks to 5 years old. But if the idea is to lighten parents’ financial load, why aren’t all forms of childcare treated the same? Why don’t stay-at-home mothers get vouchers from the state to recoup loss of income? Why don’t neighborhood babysitting collectives get help? Why is one form of childcare—administered by the state—privileged above all others? Many education savings account programs, such as the one administered by Florida, recognize that assistance from the state, if it is to exist at all, ought to be handed straight to families so that they may use it as they wish. For socialists to offer universal state-run childcare as some great liberator is frankly insulting to many mothers; in the magnificent post-work future the socialists herald, won’t many women choose to spend more time with their children, not less?

City-run grocery stores—another of Mamdani’s proposals—look like a solution in search of a problem. Food deserts—geographic zones where there aren’t any affordable, healthy options available to residents—don’t exist in New York City.

Then there’s Mamdani’s rent freeze. He hopes to fully eradicate all rent increases for the roughly 2 million New Yorkers who are currently the beneficiaries of the city’s rent-stabilization scheme, claiming this will be a boon to the working class. What he does not realize is that decades of city-sanctioned housing market distortion is what has led to untenably high rents in the first place (plus it being too difficult to build), and that many of the beneficiaries of rent stabilization are not the poorest of the poor, but rather people whose friends or family have treated other people’s real estate as their own inheritances.

And don’t even get me started on the will-he-or-won’t-he of defunding the police. Mamdani, like all progressives swept up in the cultural fervor of George Floyd Summer, once talked big talk about defunding the police (a feminist issue, he says!), but has now motte-and-baileyed his way back to more social workers and investing in mental health services including voluntary rehabilitative programs. Other hints about what Mamdani believes: “Jails are not places where people can recover from a mental health crisis, and they often have punitive responses to mental health needs” and lots of talk about reducing stigmas and improving access to care. As with food deserts, Mamdani seems to genuinely believe that violent people in the midst of mental breakdown just don’t have access to care, and that if it is simply offered to them, they will no longer resort to terrorizing their fellow man. This strikes me as a simplistic understanding of this problem which would erase the improvements in crime rates made so far in 2025.

In order to pay for all these proposals—the grocery stores, the daycares, the corps of social workers, the fare-free buses (which 48 percent of New Yorkers fail to pay for in the first place, unfortunately)—Mamdani will simply press the button socialists love: Institute a 2 percent flat tax on those earning over $1 million. What Mamdani does not realize is that you cannot abuse the “tippy top.” It is the HENRYs (“high-earners, not rich yet”) or the “working rich” who are perhaps the best examples of meritocracy in action; they’re not the “idle rich”—those who’ve inherited their wealth or made it long ago, who are now mostly price-insensitive and untouchably well-off—and they’re frequently glued to Manhattan for industries like finance, law, and tech. Meet your tax base, Zohran. You should worry if they flee to the outlying suburbs.”

https://reason.com/2025/06/25/my-city-just-voted-for-socialism/

GAO is targeted by House Republicans in new spending bill

“House Republicans are aiming to slash funding for the nonpartisan watchdog for waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government by nearly half in the next fiscal year, according to spending bill text released Sunday night.”

“GAO has served as the nation’s chief investigator of wrongdoing at federal agencies for more than a century, but has been fighting for months as Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration have attempted to undercut its legal conclusions and independence. Now, they are attempting to shrink the agency into submission as it pursues nearly 40 investigations into whether the White House is illegally withholding, or “impounding,” money Congress had previously approved.

Also tucked into the bill is a major policy change that would eliminate the GAO’s ability to bring civil action against the executive branch over impoundments of funds.

“GAO’s work makes it possible for the legislative branch to hold government accountable,” said Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute. “Congress needs independent expert advice, which is exactly what GAO provides.””

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjn8ghWKAq0

How Trump’s Top Economist Envisions Victory in the Trade War

“Foreign manufacturers will have to lower their prices to accommodate tariff rates, Miran believes. If they don’t, then U.S. importers will turn to factories in other markets rather than absorbing the cost of tariffs themselves.
“We can move our demand across borders, but a factory can’t get up and move across borders,” he said.

You might say, his theory is that the customer is always right.

This line of thinking, a theme of his work since before he joined the administration, is an important way Miran’s reasoning diverges from that of most of his fellow economists. Critics point to examples — such as Trump’s tariffs on washing machines in his first term — where consumers seemed to be the ones who paid the price.

The question of who will bear the cost burden of import taxes is an important puzzle piece for gaming out how much inflation will rise and how much growth will slow. It is a particularly critical dilemma for the Federal Reserve, which is trying to decide when to ease off the decelerating economy.”

“For this to work, foreign firms have to believe that, unless they capitulate, U.S. companies really will relocate their supply chains elsewhere, Miran told me. That’s one of the many tricky parts for proponents of Trump’s agenda — and Miran conceded as much.

“The truth is that for a lot of products, there’s not a credible alternative for a supply chain available instantaneously, right?” he said.

The recalibration, in other words, will take some time.

And that time could come at a price for the economy, as Trump’s shifting tariffs and fluid negotiations leave businesses hesitant to take action. If firms knew where tariffs would land, they could make investment decisions — on where to build factories, on what size workforce they need, on whether they need to change their business model. In the meantime, many executives are frozen in place, a paralysis that itself could take a bite out of growth.

Right now, manufacturers have been scaling back production as new orders dry up, and confidence in business conditions among CEOs collapsed during the second quarter at its fastest pace in roughly half a century.

Miran was straightforward about acknowledging that policy uncertainty is a challenge, repeatedly suggesting that there could be volatility — in growth, in prices — ahead.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/18/trump-economist-stephen-miran-trade-war-00410450

These 4 Industries Successfully Lobbied Trump for Tariff Exemptions

“When industries can boost profits more easily by lobbying for tariff exemptions than by competing in the marketplace, they will—and those incentives grow stronger as government intervention in the economy increases.”

https://reason.com/2025/06/03/the-list-who-got-a-tariff-exemption/

Doing the Math on Trump’s Economic Impact — ft. Justin Wolfers | Prof G Markets

Wealthy people and great entrepreneurs aren’t going to not start that great business because they will pay more taxes if they make it big. Either way, if successful, they would have done something great and will be rich.

The most profitable and flexible workforce for Americans is illegal immigrants.

When we put tariffs on China, we are saying every country on Earth can get low inputs from China except America, making American business less competitive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKLdzBun4sk

The Tariff Downturn

“”The OECD now forecasts global economic growth to slow to 2.9% this year from 3.3% in 2024,” notes Bloomberg. “It expects the rate of expansion in the US will tumble further, to 1.6% from 2.8%—an outlook that is significantly lower than its projection in March.””

https://reason.com/2025/06/03/the-tariff-downturn/

Overruling Trump’s Tariffs Should Be an Easy Decision for SCOTUS

“Trump unilaterally imposed tariffs on much of the world. Yet the president has no such authority under Article II of the Constitution, which enumerates the limited powers of the executive branch. Instead, the authority “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” as well as the authority “to regulate Commerce with Foreign nations,” resides exclusively in Article I, which is where the limited powers of the legislative branch are detailed.
So, Trump’s trade war violates the constitutional separation of powers because Trump has unlawfully exercised power that the Constitution placed in the hands of Congress, not in the hands of the president.”

“As a pretext for his trade war, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Yet “the statute is silent on tariffs, and for good reason. It was never meant, and has never been understood, to authorize the President to impose them.” That observation comes from a superb friend of the court brief filed by a cross-ideological group of legal scholars and former government officials in support of the legal challenge against Trump’s tariffs. Their brief thoroughly explains why Trump’s use of the IEEPA to fundamentally remake the American economy cannot be reconciled with any law passed by Congress. In short, Trump’s tariffs flunk the test imposed by the major questions doctrine.”

https://reason.com/2025/06/05/overruling-trumps-tariffs-should-be-an-easy-decision-for-scotus/