“Congressional Republicans really like the 2017 Trump tax cuts. It’s why the “big, beautiful bill” costs so much.
The decision to either extend those cuts or make them permanent before their year-end expiration date was the driving force behind the original, $2.4 trillion price tag of the House-passed megabill. Then the Senate GOP went even further, deepening the financial impact of the vast domestic policy package.
That exacerbated the string of intraparty fights that consumed Republicans for weeks. Even as different factions squared off over issues such as slashing Medicaid — hundreds of billions here, tens of billions there — the extension of the 2017 tax cuts had already set the table. In the end, the Senate added another $1 trillion to the price tag.
Detailed final estimates from Congress’ scorekeeper haven’t yet been released, but the overall picture is clear: The cost of President Donald Trump’s signature tax and spending legislation was inflated by the desire to extend the tax cuts from his first administration. Other political fights shifted the price tag from there, but there was not much the staunchest deficit hawks could do but chip away at the margins.”
“the 2025 trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare are out. Once again, they confirm what we’ve known for decades: Both programs are barreling straight toward insolvency. The Social Security retirement trust fund and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund are each on pace to run dry by 2033.
When that happens, seniors will face an automatic 23 percent cut in their Social Security benefits. Medicare will reduce payments to hospitals by 11 percent. These cuts are not theoretical. They’re baked into the law. If nothing changes, they will be made.
…
legislators could raise the payroll tax from 12.4 percent to 16.05 percent. That’s a 29.4 percent increase. Or they could restructure Social Security so that only people who need the money would receive payments. But because facing this problem in an honest way is politically toxic, legislators are ignoring it.
…
Policymakers could gradually raise the retirement age to reflect modern, healthier, longer lives. They could cap benefits at $2,050 monthly, preserving income for the bottom 50 percent of beneficiaries while progressively reducing benefits for the top half. They could reform the tax treatment of retirement income to encourage private savings, as Canada has done with its tax-free savings accounts. Any combination of these reforms would help.
But that would require admitting that the current path is unsustainable. It would require telling voters the truth. It would require courage. So far, these admirable traits have been sorely lacking in our politicians.
…
Waiting until the trust funds are empty will leave no room for gradual, targeted solutions. It will force crisis-mode slashing that will hurt the most vulnerable.”
“Republicans once talked seriously about aligning taxes and spending. They cared about economic distortion, simplicity, and broadening the tax base. Now, too many just want the sugar rush of tax cuts without fiscal discipline. Meanwhile, Democrats want to vastly expand the state and pretend that billionaires alone can foot the bill. Both sides are wrong. The math doesn’t work, and the morality of the reckless spending is worse.
Those who want to frame this bill as pro-growth are dreaming. They’re relying on unrealistic economic assumptions about a short-run bump to justify the consequences of long-term debt increases—and banking on cost-disguising budget gimmicks that nobody takes seriously.”
“These reversals may be surprising, but they were not remarkable. It was par for the course for congressional Republicans who, in recent years, have shown a proclivity for taking bold, theatrical stands before meekly capitulating in the face of political pressure — particularly from President Donald Trump.”
“Trump said the tariffs on Japan and South Korea would be separate from any “sectoral” tariffs that he imposes. That appears to refer to the duties that he has already imposed on autos, auto parts, steel and aluminum under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which gives the president broad authority to restrict imports to protect national security.”
…
“Trump said he was imposing the duties to help reduce the “very persistent” trade deficits with the two countries — meaning they export more goods to the U.S. than they buy from the U.S. — which the president blamed on Japan and South Korea’s tariffs and other trade barriers.
However, most economists disagree with that analysis, saying that macroeconomic factors like relative savings rates play more of a role in driving the overall U.S. trade deficit.”
“In March, President Donald Trump stood before a joint session of Congress and vowed to “do what has not been done in 24 years: balance the federal budget.”
The first major legislative package of Trump’s second term, however, will throw the federal budget farther out of balance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded in an updated assessment of the bill.
The CBO estimates that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cleared the House late last month and is awaiting a vote in the Senate, will increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The bill will reduce tax collections by an estimated $3.75 trillion over that period, while reducing government spending by an estimated $1.3 trillion.”