MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2025
But what the heck is in it? The bill was given a silly name—The One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The obvious purpose of the name is to assist in the content-free branding of this massive piece of legislation.
That said, what's included this sprawling bill, which has yet to reach final form? As we sit here typing today, this is the overview provided by the leading authority:
One Big Beautiful Bill Act
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, also referred to as the Big Beautiful Bill, OBBBA, OBBB, BBB or OB3, is a proposed budget reconciliation bill in the 119th United States Congress. OBBBA passed the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025, in a largely party-line vote of 215–214–1.
The House-passed OBBBA would extend the major provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. It would reduce non-military government spending and would significantly cut spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid through stricter eligibility requirements. It would also allocate an additional $150 billion for defense spending; scale back many of the Inflation Reduction Act's clean-energy tax credits; extend the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which is also scheduled to expire in 2025; and increase the SALT deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000. It contains a number of other provisions, including a ten-year ban on all state-level AI regulations.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that OBBBA would add $2.4 trillion to the national debt of the United States by 2034 and would cause 10.9 million Americans to lose health insurance coverage. This number has been disputed by multiple GOP members, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump. The CBO later raised the estimated increase in the budget deficit to $2.8 trillion.
Following the House passage of OBBBA, the bill moved to the Senate for consideration. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has set a goal of passing the Senate's version of OBBBA by July 4, 2025.
That's what the authority says at present. The bill is so big that it has four (4) acronyms, along with its silly name.
(As a point of fairness, we note the reference to the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act, which was given that name despite the fact that it had nothing to do with inflation reduction. So it goes as the American discourse about such matters disappears into chaos and incomprehension, possibly never to find its way back to its previous miserable state.)
The current bill is in a state of flux. Depending on where you go for your "news," you've heard vastly different things about its vast array of provisions.
On the front page of this morning's New York Times, Andrew Duehren offered a bit of an update:
Senate Bill Would Add at Least $3.3 Trillion to Debt, Budget Office Says
The sprawling tax and health care bill that Senate Republicans are trying to pass would add at least $3.3 trillion to the already-bulging national debt over a decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Sunday, putting a far higher price tag on the measure than some of the party’s fiscal hawks had indicated they could stomach.
The cost of the Senate bill, which Republicans rolled out overnight on Friday and were still shaping on Sunday, far exceeds the $2.4 trillion cost of the version passed in the House, where lawmakers had insisted that the overall price of the bill not substantially change. But Senate Republicans still moved forward with a number of costly changes to the bill, including making prized tax breaks for business a permanent feature of the tax code.
With roughly $29 trillion in debt currently held by the public, the budget office had already expected the government to borrow another $21 trillion over the next decade, meaning the Republican bill would make an already-dire fiscal forecast worse. And the initial estimate of a cost of $3.3 trillion for the Senate bill is an undercount, because it does not include additional borrowing costs which could push the bill’s overall addition to the debt closer to $4 trillion.
[...]
The main component driving the cost of the Republican legislative effort is the extension of a series of tax cuts from 2017. Many of those tax cuts are set to expire this year, and extending them into the future represents a roughly $3.8 trillion hit to the budget. Republicans have also piled some additional tax cuts on top, including versions of President Trump’s promises to not tax tips and overtime, bringing the overall size of the Senate tax cut to roughly $4.5 trillion.
(In this report, the Times returns to providing the figures concerning debt held by the public.)
That figure currently stands at roughly $29 trillion. Under current arrangements, that figures stands to rise to something like $50 trillion by the end of the next decade. That's before the GOP steps in to address the problem of national debt, concerning which its various spokespersons still express great concern.
How has the GOP decided to tackle this problem? Facing an expansion of debt which Duehren describes as "dire" (Paul Krugman has called it "unsustainable"), the GOP has decided to address the problem by creating "additional tax cuts"—by finding ways to bring in even less revenue over the next ten years.
According to the CBO, the OBBBA as it currently stands would therefore take the national debt from its current $29 trillion to something more like $54 trillion—unless you listen to Republican solons, in which case 1) you will hear that explosive economic growth will destroy this gloomy scenario, or 2) you'll will see the solon quickly start to talk about something else.
Regarding the spending cuts on health care programs mentioned by the leading authority, Duehren offers this today as he continues directly:
...Republicans have also piled some additional tax cuts on top, including versions of President Trump’s promises to not tax tips and overtime, bringing the overall size of the Senate tax cut to roughly $4.5 trillion.
To offset some of that cost, Republicans have also proposed deep cuts to the country’s social safety net, particularly Medicaid. According to the C.B.O., the Senate version of the legislation would mean 11.8 million Americans lose their health insurance by 2034 as federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare is reduced by roughly $1.1 trillion over that period.
In newspapers directed at Blue America, you'll be told that spending cuts will cause many people to lose their health insurance. From citizens serviced by Red America, phone calls like this were being fielded, over the weekend, by C-Span's Washington Journal.
At 7:22 on Sunday morning, Kelly from North Carolina was on the phone, reassuring the previous caller:
MODERATOR (6/29/25): That was Jerry in Tennessee. Kelly, in Clemmons, North Carolina, on the line for Republicans. Good morning, Kelly!
KELLY IN NORTH CAROLINA: Hi, Tammy! Well, I want to tell that man right there that his prayers have already been answered because they're not cutting Social Security, they're not cutting Medicare, and they're not cutting Medicaid.
They are reforming Medicaid, and the way the cuts would be are not real "cuts." They are no more illegals being able to use them. That's where the cuts are coming from, OK? All you people who are American citizens, you will still be getting everything you were getting...
I just want you all to know there's nothing to worry about. You are listening to propaganda, and it's all propaganda from the left. Stop listening to it, you're hurting yourselves. They are trying to make you in fear. Have faith, not fear, and God Bless you all.
MODERATOR: That was Kelly in North Carolina.
We have no doubt that the caller was sincere. Within Red America, that messaging has been widespread concerning the adjustments to the Medicaid program and the dollar savings which will result.
We're living in various countries now. There's no way to run a modern nation in such a state of peak Babel.
ReplyDeleteThere is a bill. It cuts taxes and it cuts spending (also known as waste-fraud-abuse). What could be better than that?
I mean, yeah, sure, a lot of things are better than that. But what bill could be better than a bill that cuts taxes and cuts spending?
What kind of BS you gonna come up with when this whole thing collapses? For Chrissake the reason the 2017 tax cuts were set to expire is they knew they were blowing an unsustainable while in the deficit. Instead of facing up to the crime of every Republican admin since Ronnie, they are doubling down on the disaster they have constructed. Talk about morally bankrupt and misguided thieves, I give you today's shit publican party.
DeleteParts of the inflation reduction act addressed inflation directly, like prescription drugs. Parts help indirectly, by subsidizing development of lower cost per btu gree energy. Of course the mooks want to undo anything good for the people or their comons.
ReplyDeleteWhat should a Supreme Court Justice rely on in order to properly interpret the Constitution as regards illegal aliens. For one member of the SC, the answer is: space aliens. This person wrote:
ReplyDeleteA Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder: "what good is the Constitution, then?" What, really, is this system for protecting people's rights if it amounts to this—placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law's protection, and rendering the very institution that has the singular function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution powerless to prevent the Government from violating it? "Those things Americans call constitutional rights seem hardly worth the paper they are written on!"
Embarrassed to comment on the 5 trillion dollar debt producing bill that is the subject of this Somerby entry? Completely understood.
DeleteIf you were wondering how Americans would respond to a Hitler type of evil character; I give you David in Cali.
DeleteIt's nice that you pay attention to Justice Brown's dissent, DiC.
DeleteErr. Jackson. Not Brown. I'm always switching the order of her names.
DeleteIf a Martian meets David, he’ll signal his home planet — Stay away from Earth! The inhabitants are ignorant and hateful.
DeleteI am glad to comment, @5:24. I hate this bill. A proper bill IMO would dramatically cut spending in every area including defense, SS, Medicare and Medicaid. I mean real cuts -- i.e., spending less than last year. As you probably know, they play with the word. The call it a "cut" when they recommend a big increase over last year and then enacting a somewhat smaller increase.
ReplyDeletePeople who worked paid into social security with the expectation that they will receive a specified amount every month when they retire, based upon their age at the time.
DeleteP.S. This is much worse than a $5 trillion debt producing bill. It's a $50 trillion debt producing bill. Both parties needs to look at the entire $50 trillion.
Delete@5:47 - You're absolutely right. The problem is that the government made explicit and implicit promises that add up to a completely unaffordable total. A lot of people are going to get screwed.
DeleteThere are ways to correct any potential problems with SS. If those ways aren’t acted on, then people will needlessly get screwed.
DeleteEasiest 80% fix, remove the payroll tax cap on rich assholes. Good enough for me to pay on 100% of my income, good enough for those fuckers.
DeleteUltimately benefits won't disappear, they will just be paid at 80% give or take. So as usual poor people will take the brunt of the hit. An upper middle class couple with $2M in assets will go from $5,000/mo. to $4,000/mo, maybe Jr. isn't gifted $10,000 every Christmas now. Poor folks with no assets and rising prices will be devastated going from $1,200/mo. to $960/mo. But DiC don't give a shit 'cause he is all good.
DeleteI keep pointing out, David, that SS and medicare don't contribute to the deficit -- but somehow it's not penetrating.
DeleteIlya is correct of course. What about it David? You be awful quiet when you be wrong. And you be wrong a lot.
DeleteIlya - You're right in a way. SS and Medicare won't affect the formal reported deficit in 2026. However, in economic terms the deficit represents additional money that must be paid back. The debt is less money for our children. SS and Medicare will either reduce benefits and/or increase assessments in the future. So, the fact that SS assessments are not keeping up with benefits has the same effect as a deficit.
DeleteAlso, when the SS Trust Fund runs out in a few years, one possible solution would be to make up the difference with money from the General Fund. This would increase the formal reported deficit.
Increase the payroll tax cap and decrease payments to those who do not need them. It is an insurance plan. Bill Gates doesn't need a monthly check. I don't need one at the payout I am receiving. If the top 1% want to complain about this it's only an indication of how entitled they are.
DeleteYes, 11:17, that's probably what will happen. But, that means converting SS from an insurance plan to a welfare plan.
DeleteDavid -- I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. However, I am going to hazard a guess here that you want to finance GOP tax cuts over the years by defaulting on the Treasury bonds held in the SS trust.
DeleteYour bullshit line about "less money for out children" is just that -- bullshit. Money for our children for what? What are you talking about? We are not spending money on our children. We are making sure that the Bezos, the Musks of the world keep all their wealth untouched and can pass it on to their children. Perhaps, that's the children that you're concerned about.
You're a good GOP soldier, marching ahead, repeating their claptrap without giving a passing thought.
Here's what we are being told: we are the wealthiest, most economically vibrant nation on earth; therefore, all you little people will have to sacrifice a little more to keep us that way. Is there a universe in which this makes sense?
It's simple: the wealth is gonna have to loosen up their goddamn purse strings and pay the fuck up! Enough of this parasitism!
Ilya - sorry for the confusion. I was writing about what I think will happen, not what I want.
DeleteIn a moment of honesty, DiC and his ilk would confess that they were never the least bit serious about economics and the national debt. They are thrilled that we will be getting 10,000 more masked agents to raid houses and lock up brown people at a time when this country has 400,000 vacant manufacturing jobs. Tax and economic policy hasn't been a winning hand with Republicans for the past 60 years or so. 23 Nobel Laureate economists predicted what is now incipient. In the complete adulation of their donors, Repubs are on the verge of tanking the economy and adding a back breaking 3 1/3 trillion to the national debt. The inflationary effects of tariffs are coming due as stockpiles of goods are depleted and the Chinese and EU stand up to the cognitively impaired old man and his enablers.
Delete
DeleteThese are great times, only to be exceeded in the future when we return to coal. Who wouldn't like this bill?
@David in Cal at 11:43 PM
DeleteActually, the opposite happened earlier this year; check out the so-called "Social Security Fairness Act", also known as a repeal of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO).
The short version: people who (arguably) don't need all of SS are getting more of it now.
Hey all you waste, fraud, and abuse whiners, and all you "deep state" conspiracists; explain this shit to me: "If the bill passes, it will make ICE the nation’s largest jailer, with more funding for prison camps than the entire federal Bureau of Prisons. It would give ICE enough money to have more officers than the entire FBI."
ReplyDeleteWhen they run out of migrants to deport, then what will they do with all those officers and prisons?
DeleteThe greatest thing about Trump is he is a disruptor of the things that need disrupted. What other President in history would have the balls to do this? "The Trump administration is dropping charges against ms-13 gang leaders after the gang leaders agreed to use their power as gang leaders to support Nayib Bukele politically in El Salvador. www.nytimes.com/2025/06/30/u..."
ReplyDeleteFucking dude is awesome man, letting MS-13 on the loose for the benefit of Trump! The guy totally delivers on his promise to let the gang members loose and jail the 30 year chef/neighbor. That is Big Balls level taking action, if you know what I mean!!!
“ the caller was sincere.”
ReplyDeleteBut woefully uninformed. Seems like a choice to me.
News flash: Trump cologne now available for $199 a bottle. Proceeds go to charity.
ReplyDeleteJust kidding. LOL.
You also get a graven image of the demon with your purchase.
Delete