The Big Beautiful Bill

President Trump's so-called big beautiful bill to extend the tax cuts from his first administration and pay for them through cuts to federal spending — programs like Medicaid and SNAP — is struggling to be birthed by the House. Not hopeful that it will die in the House, I felt obligated to express my opposition to my Congressional representative:

Representative Rogers,

While House Republicans were holding middle-of-the-night hearings on the president’s so-called “big beautiful bill,” the CBO was analyzing the impact of the legislation, if passed:

The CBO estimates the tax provisions in the proposed bill will add some $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

After decades of Republican arguments during Democratic administrations that the federal debt must be reduced, the Republican hypocrisy is unfortunate, although not surprising. The tax cuts of the Bush and first Trump administrations fueled the debt. Why should we expect the second Trump administration to change behavior?

It’s not what you say, but rather what you do.

The CBO analysis also projects that the top 10% of earners will receive about 65% of the tax cut benefits. The cuts to social programs like Medicaid and SNAP will cause households in the lowest quintile to lose about $1,035 in income next year. That’s substantial for low-income Alabamians, who are living on the margins.

Not surprisingly, the CBO analysis contradicts Republican claims that the bill will not cut benefits, that it will only eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.

As expected, you’re taking from the poor to further enrich the rich. We see no consideration of increasing the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, who can afford to support the country that has enabled their success.

I urge you to have the courage to oppose this legislation. You were elected by the people of your district, not by President Trump.

---

Addensum: The House narrowly passed the bill on Thursday, May 22, by a vote of 215-214. All 212 Democrats present voted against the bill, joined by two Republicans. One Republican representative voted "present," and two did not vote. Mike Rogers supported the bill.

The bill moves on to the Senate.

Starve the Poor to Feed the Wealthy

The New York Times headline reads

House Passes G.O.P. Budget Teeing Up Enormous Tax and Spending Cuts
The vote cleared the way to enact major elements of President Trump’s domestic agenda and escalated a bitter fight among Republicans over what federal programs to shrink to finance major tax cuts.

Before the vote, I sent the following email to my Congressional representative, Mike Rogers:

I am horrified by President Trump's agenda to dismember the federal government and Congress abdicating its role as co-equal to the executive branch.

To focus on a specific concern, the proposed cuts to Medicaid will impose unconscionable suffering on many Alabamian families — particularly children — while using those "found funds" to further enrich the wealthy. They need no financial assistance and should be paying far more in taxes to support the country that enabled them to become wealthy.

Please put your country above your fealty to the president.

The Federal debt and extension of the Bush tax cuts

Republicans in Congress have refused to extend long-term unemployment benefits unless the $33-billion cost does not add to the Federal debt, meaning other programs are cut. To add interest to the debate, yesterday the government released the latest employment data, showing the unemployment rate rising from 9.6 to 9.8%.  WSJ report here.

In a parallel universe, the Republicans are holding to their position to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, not just those earning under $250,000 per year as advocated by President Obama. The Christian Science Monitor calculates the cost of this tax break for the upper income earners at $68-billion per year.

Does this inconsistency seems hypocritical to you?

It sure seems that way to me — enough that I penned the following to send to Representative Boehner (House Majority Leader in the new Congress) and Senator McConnell (Senate Minority Leader):

On the one hand, you decry the defict and debt and say we cannot afford extending benefits for the unemployed — even with the unemployment rate rising. 

Yet you argue that tax cuts for the wealthiest in the nation should be extended -- $68-billion annually that would reduce the deficit or pay for the $33-billion extension of unemployment benefits. 

Your position sure seems hypocritical and pure politics, certainly not representing the best interests of our country.