6 things to know about Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'

Yahoo

2 days ago

It's taken a few months but on July 3rd, President Donald Trump got the centerpiece of his legislative agenda, what he calls his "big, beautiful bill" passed — narrowly — by a Republican-led Congress.
Trump, possibly on Independence Day, will sign the bill, which was built around continuing the tax cuts he got Congress to pass eight years ago during his first term beyond their expiration date. But this package goes much further by restricting Medicaid and food stamps, shifting federal costs to states, cutting a slew of other taxes and raising the nation's debt limit by $5 trillion.
Republicans leaders have argued throughout that it delivers on the nation's priorities, cuts spending and will result in lower deficits, despite Democratic claims to the contrary that it hurts working class and lower-income Americans. In the end, pretty much all the more moderate Republicans in the U.S. House, who were said to have concerns over the Medicaid cuts, and more fiscally demanding GOP members, who said it didn't slash government enough, rallied behind it (though it's unclear what, if any promises, were made to them to secure their support). It passed 218-214 on a largely party line final vote. All of Michigan's Republican members voted for it; all the Democrats voted against.
For Michiganders, here's a handful of highlights, or lowlights, depending on your political perspective:
As has been reported widely, the legislation includes expanded work, education or training requirements of 80 hours a month for able adults who aren't caregivers of small kids to continue getting food stamps under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or insurance coverage under Medicaid, the state/federal program for low-income individuals and families. (Medicaid work requirements would need to be in place by the end of next year in most cases; it's unclear in the bill when the tougher new SNAP rules would go into place but it could be sooner.) Trump has insisted this doesn't constitute a cut and Republicans have argued that it means people who most need help will get it. But nonprofit providers and Democrats say the end result will be to restrict coverage as people fall off the rolls. The Citizens Research Council of Michigan, a nonpartisan group, estimates between 200,000 and 700,000 Michiganders could lose health insurance under the bill. Meanwhile, additional costs for maintaining the programs will be shifted back onto the state (and its taxpayers) or have to be cut.
During former President Joe Biden's administration, a Democratic Congress provided a consumer credit of up to $7,500 for the purchase of a qualifying electric vehicle, or EV, as a way to push product for American automakers who were lining up new models for the coming years. Trump campaigned against it and any other rules trying to push people to buy EVs and the subsidy will terminate, abruptly, on Sept. 30 of this year. Meanwhile, the bill cuts the civil fine for automakers that violate fuel mile-per-gallon standards (which have been used to try to make auto fleets more environmentally friendly) down to zero.
In large measure, the bill is intended to make permanent those earlier tax cuts — for corporations and for individual taxpayers — while raising the standard deduction and the child tax credit somewhat. While those changes may not be felt widely as they largely lock in existing breaks, the same can't be said for some others. Like a new $6,000 deduction for some seniors. A deduction for tipped income and overtime pay. And a deduction for interest paid on new vehicle loans (or at least those assembled in the U.S.) Each has its restrictions based on income and how much is being deducted and will last for only a few years as written but they'll make a big difference to some taxpayers.
When taking into account all of the tax cuts in the legislation, which runs about 900 pages long, revenues — tax collections — would be reduced by about $4.5 trillion over a decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). But the enumerated spending cuts − the specific reductions made to federal government spending − included in the bill total just $1.2 trillion, according to CBO. Various other organizations have made different estimates, and, yes, much of the smaller tax collections result from continuing the earlier 2017 tax cuts beyond their expiration date. But there is widespread agreement among fiscally minded research groups like the Cato Institute and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget that by not making more specific spending cuts and holding back on the tax cut changes it will explode the nation's debt at a time when it should be reining it in. Republicans, however, promise there are more spending cuts on the way.
Not in any major way directly but there are widespread concerns that it will hasten the already-short window before Social Security's retirement trust fund and Medicare's hospital trust fund become insolvent — meaning reserves and other backups won't be adequate to make up the gap between payroll taxes and the benefits they pay out. (The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says that's just seven years away, which is just a year earlier than trustees for both programs said insolvency would occur.) At that point, benefits will have to be cut, possibly substantially. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says this bill makes the situation worse because by cutting taxes, especially by adding the extra $6,000 cut for taxpayers over age 65, it cuts the amount going into the trust funds.
We'll have to wait to find out. Certainly, everyone understood there was a lot on the line — House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York broke the record for a House speech by speaking for 8 hours, 45 minutes ahead of the vote. (There's no filibuster in the House but each party's top leader can speak for as long as he or she likes as a debate wraps up.) For Republicans, it boosts some of their supporters' biggest priorities — such as increasing spending on military defense, shipbuilding, terminating environmental programs and battling illegal immigration — but if a health care crisis ensues because of Medicaid changes, or rural hospitals suffer, it could result in a huge blowback. And there's no question that GOP members who complained in the past about rising deficits will be accused of having their fingerprints all over them now. That could be a concern in Michigan for GOP members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. John James of Shelby Township, who is running for governor, and U.S. Rep. Tom Barrett, of Charlotte, running for reelection in a closely fought swing district. On the other hand, Democrats like U.S. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet of Bay City, who is in a swing district herself, could get tagged by Republicans for not backing a bill they say is meant to cut taxes and spending. It remains to be seen just how much the public will pay attention and which side, if either, pays a price. But if one side or the other does, it could be a big price to pay in next year's midterm elections, given that the GOP has a slim 220-212 vote majority.
Contact Todd Spangler: [e-mail]. Follow him on X @tsspangler.
This story has been updated with additional information.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' passes: 6 things to know