Friends, there are some great elements to the proposed "Big, Beautiful Bill" that incorporates many of Trump's priorities on taxes and spending. Alas, it leaves me wanting more...or rather less, since I view the spending cuts as totally insufficient. As you know, I'm very concerned about the deficit and the debt, and I appear to be about the only person alive who is! Oh well. That's my cross to bear.
The “Big, Beautiful Bill” May Backfire
The process of crafting and passing legislation has often been compared to sausage-making, insofar as most people enjoy eating sausage, but virtually no one wants to watch discarded animal parts getting ground into a paste and stuffed in a tube. The process of proposing, debating, and passing a federal budget is similar. The results may be generally agreeable, but the process that creates them can be ugly in the extreme.
Right now, the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress are in the sausage-making stage of the budget process. Lofty aspirations and bright ideas are, slowly and inexorably, being ground into a paste made of compromise and mediocrity. Almost certainly, the final result will be a budget that does not radically change the shape and extent of the federal government, from one fiscal year to the next. Republicans, conservatives, and Trumpers, however, have another reason to expect a final federal budget that lets them, and the country, down, and that's because President Trump's initial budget request was evasive and inadequate in addressing the most pressing problem our nation faces: runaway and unsustainable federal spending, out of line with revenues, and overly reliant on borrowing. And Trump's initial request will, almost inevitably, be watered down by Congress, which will, after much horse trading, spend even more than Trump asked for.
At first glance, President Trump's proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 looks like a dream-come-true for Republicans and conservatives. It slashes non-defense discretionary spending by 23%. When one digs into the weeds further, though, much of the envisaged savings comes from eliminating almost all “emergency” expenditures. In other words, if one assumes that there won't be any natural disasters, fires, pandemics, or other unforeseen calamities in 2026, then Trump's rosy forecast might actually come true, but, life being the endless string of surprise setbacks that it is, these savings are speculative, at best. In fact, “base discretionary” spending, according to Trump's initial request, would not decline at all. It would remain flat.
But, you may be saying to yourself, even holding federal spending level from one year to the next is a HUGE accomplishment, no? Bully for Trump! Thanks, Elon!
Hold your horses, because the worst news is yet to come. Discretionary spending, i.e. spending that isn't “automatic” and/or mandated by previous legislation, represents only 26% of the federal budget as a whole. How is this possible? Because big fiscal commitments like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and servicing the national debt are all...separate. They are “non-discretionary” items that Trump and friends decided not to mention in their request to Congress. We have no idea how much the federal government will spend on these mandatory budget lines in the year ahead, based on Trump's budget plan, but we have plenty of ideas based on past trends. In short, these expenditures will go up...a lot!
To take Medicare as an example, since the year 2000, the growth in federal spending on health care for seniors has averaged 6.5% per year. In no year since 2000 did the GDP grow as much as 6.5%, meaning that, every single year, the burden of funding Medicare becomes harder and harder for the nation to bear, and the percentage of the federal budget that must go towards meeting these obligations goes up, up, up! The same logic holds for Social Security and Medicaid, meaning that, since Trump has proposed no major changes to these programs, overall federal spending on these “non-discretionary” items will rise significantly in 2026, as it does every year.
But, you may be saying to yourself, the dastardly Dems keep telling me that Orange Man Bad wants to cut Medicaid to the bone, and he wants every poor person to die in the gutter. Well, that narrative may have been slightly oversold. The truth is that Trump and Republicans are proposing reforms to Medicaid that could reduce its rate of growth (gasp!), but the most important changes are not supposed to take effect until...2027, or maybe even 2029 (!), meaning that Congress will have plenty of time to walk them back.
What, then, have we learned in the course of this exploration of the political debate over Trump's “big, beautiful” budget proposal? The truth is that, by avoiding any immediate or meaningful cuts to “mandated” spending on so-called “entitlement” programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Trump has proposed a budget that won't significantly reduce spending – and, once Congress is done mashing it into fiscal sausage, probably won't reduce spending at all, or might increase it. Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans are proposing major tax cuts that, by themselves, could add trillions to the deficit and the national debt over the next ten years. The upshot, then, is that, if these tax cuts ever materialize, ordinary Americans like you and me should enjoy them while we can, because President Trump and Republicans in Congress won't have altered our unsustainable fiscal trajectory at all, unless, by “altered”, we mean “made it marginally worse”.
The “big, beautiful bill” has many excellent features, and it may – it should – lead to higher rates of economic growth. What it won't do, unfortunately, is change the fact that this is a country seemingly hell-bent on spending beyond its means, and which presumably will keep on doing so until its creditors cry out, “No more!”
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmakers show on WLEA/WYSL.
And here it is at the Olean Times Herald:
https://www.oleantimesherald.com/2025/05/28/the-big-beautiful-bill-could-backfire/
***
In other news, President Trump had a verbal clash with the president of South Africa today in the Oval Office. I feel conflicted on this issue, because I'm thrilled to see any world leader take seriously the plight of the "white man of Africa", who, by and large, was abandoned to his miserable fate, often including persecution and/or murder, decades ago, but on the other hand Trump and Musk are not always accurate in their claims about South Africa, and President Ramaphosa is right that black South Africans face much higher rates of violent crime than whites. The upshot of this dialogue, I suspect, will be that South Africa should feel obligated to dial down its racist policies, and the Trump Administration, sooner or later, will probably strike a deal with South Africa on trade. I hope so, as this outcome would be in the best interests of all concerned.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9vvljen0xo
Finally, a pal o' mine wrote this fine article, which argues that the cover-up of Joe Biden's mental (and physical) decline by the Dems and the establishment was a major scandal. I agree. The truth is that, if Joe Biden had (prudently) avoided a debate with Trump, he might still be president as we speak. That's a scary thought!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Another well taken essay from you! I was feeling pretty good about the bill having passed the House even though it now faces Charle's Schumer's hyperbole and his customary contempt. I'm glad it passed but I'm given very much pause by your well reasoned and supported observations.
ReplyDeleteTo your knowledge , would this bill provide Presidential line item veto? I haven't heard that it does. With this President that could provide a way for him to selectively disable expenditures he (and the majority of common sense Americans )opposes (subject I would guess, to possible Congressional override).
Of course only with DJT or someone like him can there be any hope of any beneficial reform of Federal spending. A dem dictatorship would bring the deluge, made far more destructive by frantic far left vindictiveness over their present ordeal.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I didn't know until now that it comes under the provisions of "conciliation" and that it only requires 51 votes in the Senate. I'm sure it will pass but then it will have to go to Conference Committee because there will almost certainly be changes made in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteWith the misgivings you have expressed in mind I'm still hoping to
see "promises made," promises made law. Let the flummoxed Dems yet wail about "dictatorship" . Not many 215-214 votes in the totalitarian states they emulate. No, here "elections have consequences" yessiree!
Now in the People's Republic of NY we in the disdained common sense "minnahrity" dread budget bills because our rulers see them as convenient vehicles for all manner of dreamy neomarxist nonbudget dreck which makes our benighted state the copariah of the Union.Come budget time every April we wonder what counterintuitive decrees will be imposed on us.
MIsusing budget bills in this "expansive" and presumptuous manner is of course a Dem tactic which we have had of necessity to learn to practice in U.S. government, just like the voiceless filibuster.But unlike the far left, our use of it is not an incipiently totalitarian tactic.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The Telegraph would not let me read the article but I'm confident that the coverup of Biden's disabilities, which were plainly obvious to those around him, can be plausibly argued the greatest scandal in U.S. history. And as such it deserves exhaustive reiteration , as it opened a window straight into the antiamerican far left's most cherished intents for our erring country.
ReplyDeleteWatergate? Nah, Nixon was unwise and unlucky but he was a very competent President who could have handled any emergency with skill. Tea Pot Dome? Rank corruption but nothing presenting catastrophic possible consequences. A draft dodging amoral and cynical brat enjoying his desecration of the White House and delighting in the 'long con" he worked to gain entrance? He was never sorely tested in this hard world but his compromised character could have cost us dearly had he been so tried.
Nah, having a dangerously mentally impaired man with his finger on the nuclear trigger was an appalling situation. Didn't make no nevermind to his far left handlers. They needed him as a front, "by any means necessary". When they lost him, his value to them became obvious.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Your academic specialty on S. Africa helps to make your observation above very well taken. A question we deal with in our country too: how long is it just to seek retribution for past injustices? Is it at all constructive to direct it to entire groups which include but do not consist wholly of past willfull oppressors? Do efforts directed so become mainly cynical power plays ?
ReplyDeleteJack, no, alas, there won't be any presidential line item veto. The Supremes have held it to be unconstitutional. I suppose Congress could delegate more of its authority to the executive branch by statute, but recently the courts have been curbing that practice. The best thing that Congress could do is ratify the dismantling of various federal agencies, but I haven't heard a peep about them doing so.
ReplyDeleteJack, your last question is a very apt one. BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) has certainly been applied very cynically in South Africa. It has enriched the already rich blacks, and left most of the remainder mired in poverty. Granted, there is now a sizeable non-white middle class, but its formation began way back under apartheid. It's not at all clear that "black rule" has made life any better, in a strictly material sense, for black South Africans than if the Boers had clung to power for all time. The main problem is that the economy as a whole is stuck in a rut, and the present government seems incapable of fixing that, although it is pretty good at making it worse.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I'm going to presume the use of Marc Antony's funeral oration for Caesar as a metaphor. When it has had its desired effect on the crowd he says "now let it work!
ReplyDeletePerhaps DJT has a similar purpose in mind for many of his Executive Orders; "get the ball rolling". Eg.: perhaps the Federal Education Dep't will prove so damaged by his EOs and its necessity as discredited so as to make it irredemable. Then it could become merely a vestigial and undefendable waste of tax payer funds . Its
demonstrated advocacy of far leftist "fundamental transformation" of EVEN KIndergartens could then be relegated to a bizarre past the teaching of which as regretable history could be a powerful antidote to any future reprise of our present neomarxist plague. The "American" far left has correctly perceived elementary education as a vital foundation for constructive living. Lets meet them headon on this indispensable battlefield!
Surely a canny player like DJT might stand by for awhile and when or if the time seems right, ask Congress to defund the dessicated husk of this incipiently totalitarian bureau. By then it might be an easier fight. Why not concentrate our greatest redemptive power on those desperately recalcitrant redoubts of far leftist fanaticism which may require overwhelming direct assault (eg. the very principle of DEI; let it be shackled with comprehensive reflexive condemnation analogous to that with which radicals have so long presumed to attack America).
Hmm. Maybe, Jack. Maybe Trump is biding his time and will move to terminate, legislatively, all those departments and agencies that he and we hate in due course. I sure hope so! I think a more realistic explanation for the absence of such measures in the big, beautiful bill is that the Republican leadership doesn't think it can get a majority in either house to vote for them (alas).
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack : Then it is up to we voters to remind our legislators of how our country's failure to collapse despite the disabilities DJT has visited upon institutions pleaded indispensable by the far left proves how very superfluous these agencies are and how disingenuous the far left is in dolorously lamenting them and viciously condemning we who celebrate even their incipient demise.
ReplyDelete