So the big beautiful bill has passed, as sensible observers knew it would. Apart from the benefits of the bill itself–extending the 2017 tax cuts was absolutely mandatory, and it has some other good provisions as well–its passage has a couple of additional benefits.
First, we get to enjoy liberal angst. Democrats did all they could to fend off the inevitable, or at least to look to their base like they were trying to fend off the inevitable. Hakeem Jeffries delayed the final vote by giving a nine-hour speech, during which one fellow Democrat, who unfortunately was on camera, fell asleep. Democrats apparently view these efforts as heroic, while to the rest of us they are an opportunity for schadenfreude.
The New York Times had live coverage of proceedings in the House that included gems like these:
The House on Thursday narrowly passed a sweeping bill to extend tax cuts and slash social safety net programs, capping Republicans’ chaotic monthslong slog to overcome deep rifts within their party and deliver President Trump’s domestic agenda.
So this signal victory was really a “chaotic slog” that exposed “deep rifts.” Because two Republican House members voted against the bill, I guess. And what is this about “slash[ing] social safety net programs”? Would that it were true! I would love to slash social safety net programs, but the White House accurately says that this bill “does not make a single cut to welfare programs.” Sad but true. The only “slashing” I am aware of is 1) barring illegal aliens from Medicaid, which obviously they shouldn’t be getting, and 2) imposing a work/study/look for work requirement for Medicaid, which many states had until such requirements were prohibited by the Biden administration.
Also this:
The hope of winning future elections was little solace to some lawmakers. Representative Brittany Pettersen, Democrat of Colorado, was sobbing as she left the vote. “The amount of kids who are going to go without health care and food — people like my mom are going to be left to die because they don’t have access to health care,” she said. “It’s just pretty unfathomable.”
The Times hopes that Democrats will “win future elections” because voters love high taxes and want illegal aliens to enjoy endless health care and other benefits. I guess we will have to see about that. But Democrats live in a parallel reality: the idea that children will starve and elderly adults will die because they “don’t have access to health care” is delusional. We should check back in a year or two and see whether Congresswoman Pettersen’s mother is still with us.
Second, it has focused liberal attention, however hypocritically, on the national debt. The national debt increased by over $8 trillion during the Biden administration, and if Democrats minded they kept it to themselves. But this morning’s New York Times email is headed: “Sizing up the debt.”
President Trump’s domestic policy bill, which the House is debating now on the floor and is expected to vote on soon, would add $3.4 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade. That’s on top of $29 trillion the U.S. already owes.
The bill adds nothing to the national debt; the $3.4 trillion represents the huge tax increase that would have gone into effect on January 1 if the bill hadn’t passed. And isn’t the national debt $36 trillion? If Trump has gotten it down to $29 trillion, he is doing even better than I thought.
Numbers that big can lose their meaning. But the debt is not all abstract; it’s money Americans enjoy today but future generations must pay off with interest. The interest America has to pay its lenders will exceed $1 trillion for the first time ever next year — more than we spend on Medicare.
Worse, it is already more than we spend on defense. It is wonderful to see liberal institutions like the Times coming out as budget hawks. I look forward to the Times’ support when the next budget proposal makes deep cuts in federal spending.
