The Good & The Bad In Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill"

The president's signature domestic legislation is halfway home. We look at what's inside and how it could be made even better.

President Trump’s tax and spending plans—his “Big Beautiful Bill,” as he dubbed it—has passed the House of Representatives and is currently being negotiated in the Senate. That the “BBB” has drawn criticism and non-support from Democrats is no surprise. Where the BBB faced rocky waters in the House and still does in the Senate is that some Republicans—including some good ones, from Ron Johnson in Wisconsin to Rick Scott in Florida—are raising opposition. Let’s take a look at what’s good and bad in this bill and what the different options for improvement might be:

The Good: The Tax Proposals

A package of tax cuts aimed directly at middle-and-working class people is the crown jewel of the BBB. It represents the fulfillment of many of Trump’s biggest campaign promises and more than a few other good ideas. Notable among them are…

*Overtime pay would be exempt from any taxation

*Tipped income would be exempt from any taxation

*There are “baby bonuses” of a $1,000 for every newborn (initially proposed by the White House at $5K, but it had to be negotiated down)

*The ability to write off $10,000 per year in interest on auto loans—so long as the car was made in the United States.

*Then there’s the standard deduction. It would be increased for everyone and seniors with incomes under $75,000 would get nearly double the increase.

All of this is significant enough. But there’s also the matter of the 2017 tax cuts that were passed in Trump’s first term. Quite a few provisions in the ’17 law are set to expire at the end of this year. The BBB extends them. Simply extending current law, absent any of the positives above, brings the following benefits:

*We won’t see the standard deduction reduced.

*Businesses that invest in equipment can continue to write that off, rewarding job-creating activity.

*Those who have had student loan debt forgiven will not have to count that forgiven debt as part of their taxable income.

*On top of all this, the BBB proposes $1.4 trillion in spending cuts.

So, what’s the problem? Why are good senators like Johnson and Scott raising a ruckus? They have good reasons for their caution.

The Bad: The Spending

While the spending cuts sound great, they are scheduled to go into effect over a period of years. This is a game that Washington D.C. plays on a regular basis. To pass something popular, you pay for it with spending cuts down the line—and then count on a future Congress to just reverse the cuts before they actually take effect and keep spending the money. Johnson and Scott are leading a push to get more real spending cuts into the BBB. Trump has signaled his willingness to negotiate, saying flat-out, he might even like some of the changes they come up with.

This is where we’re now at in the Senate—negotiation to produce a bill that will fulfill Trump’s promises on tax legislation, give taxpayers needed relief and still do something about the spending.

If the Senate passes its own version of the BBB, the next step is for the House and Senate to go into a Conference Committee—where they reconcile any differences between their bills and then resubmit them to their members for a final vote, fulfilling the constitutional requirement that both chambers pass the bill in exactly the same form. Once this happens, it can go to Trump for his signature.

The odds that something strongly resembling the House legislation will pass and get to Trump’s desk are very good. While Republicans have their share of problems and in-fighting, they can generally get together on tax cut proposals. They did so in both of Reagan’s presidential terms, again in George W. Bush’s first term, and for Trump in 2017. There will be haggling and posturing, but the stakes for the party are too high not to pass the bill, Trump’s personal investment in it is too great, and the differing factions of the GOP generally agree on the merits of cutting taxes.

Furthermore, there are a variety of tools at the White House’s disposal for meeting the valid concerns of Johnson and Scott. They go into the nature of how spending is authorized by Congress.

Two Types of Spending

Government appropriations fall into two categories—mandatory and discretionary.

Mandatory spending refers to programs like Social Security, Medicare, and means-tested social programs, including unemployment comp. If you meet certain criteria (age, income, employment status, etc), you get a check. It just automatically triggers.

Discretionary spending, as the name implies, involves actual discretion by Congress in how much funding to authorize and for what. There is considerably more ability to find cost savings in discretionary spending.

Here’s the kicker—only mandatory spending is dealt with in the BBB. Discretionary spending will be voted on separately. Furthermore, discretionary spending is where Elon Musk’s DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) was uncovering absurd levels of waste over the past several months.

This gives the White House considerable leeway in negotiating with those concerned about spending levels. Here’s how it can work…

*While Congress authorizes funds, both the amount and for what purpose, the executive branch can report back that X amount of funding is not needed for the authorized project.

For example, if Congress authorizes $10 million to study cancer, and a DOGE audit finds that $2 million of that is going to study what makes mice become transgender, the Administration can report that the $2 million is not needed, while still fulfilling the original congressional intent.

*The way this is done is through recission. The Administration identifies the wasted funds that don’t need to be spent and submits it back to Congress. The House and Senate must then vote up or down on the recission package. As the branch of government that holds the power of the purse, they’re still entitled to spend the money on something absurd—only now they would have to go on the record as wanting to do that.

Recission packages are already being prepared for the summer. They’re coming in small increments--$10 billion or so (what they call chump change in Washington D.C.). This provides a way to get the necessary spending cuts, while still passing the needed tax cuts.

What I’d like to see is Johnson and Scott use their leverage in the Senate to pressure the White House to accelerate the pace and scope of recission packages. But above all, we need the Big Beautiful Bill to pass. It will be necessary for the economy, good for all of us, and a political winner.

***********************************************

SUPPORT CORNED BEEF CATHOLICISM

If you like the content here, the best way to help is to share and forward with like-minded people (and even a friendly adversary if they’re open-minded)

*Second, encourage people to subscribe. Our subscriptions here are free, so there’s no content behind a paywall.

I wrote a novel back in 2003 that was set in a fictional Irish Catholic neighborhood in postwar Boston. It’s still online at Amazon, in both print and electronic formats. The novel celebrates Catholic teaching, old-school populist politics (in an era when the Democratic Party was home to my kind of voter), the Boston Red Sox and Notre Dame football. In the worlds of faith, sports, and politics, it captures what I believe.

You can buy the book here:

I’ve also set up a “tip jar” over at the website Buy Me a Coffee. If you find an article or video particularly informative or enjoyable, you can leave an electronic tip.

Finally, while I’ve gotten active in politics because events of the last five years have shown that we have to protect ourselves, my first interest remains sports. I’ve got a nostalgia website, OUAT Sports, which is regularly updated with historical articles and includes a blog on current games. If you or someone you love is a sports fan, bookmark the site, and sign up for the free Substack associated with it