logo
Trump's big bill achieved what conservatives have been trying to do for decades

Trump's big bill achieved what conservatives have been trying to do for decades

The Guardian2 days ago
For decades, Republicans have argued that the US would be better off if taxes were low, and programs to help low-income Americans were harder to access. With Donald Trump's marquee tax and spending bill now set to become law, the country will find out what it's like to live under that sort of system.
The massive legislation that Trump plans to sign Friday will make his campaign promises a reality by extending tax cuts enacted during his first term, and creating new deductions aimed at the working-class voters who backed his re-election.
But it will also fundamentally reorder two major social safety net programs, slashing funding and imposing new work requirements that nonpartisan estimates say will cost millions of people their benefits. The ripple effects, experts say, will be felt across the country, and not just by the poor.
'Sometimes people like to feel like this is an us versus them [issue], but this is really all of us. It is the people that your kids are going to school with it, is your neighbor, the people that you play soccer with,' said Lelaine Bigelow, executive director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality 'This is going to have a massive effect on a lot of people around this country.'
The 'one big, beautiful bill', as Trump calls it, won final approval by the House of Representatives on Thursday, in time for his signature on 4 July, the US Independence Day holiday. In addition to the tax cuts, it will also channel tens of billions in dollars towards immigration enforcement and building a wall along the Mexican border.
To cut costs, Republicans included provisions to end green energy incentives created under Joe Biden, but the bulk of the savings will come from changes to two programs: Medicaid, which provides healthcare to low-income and disabled Americans, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which helps low-income Americans afford food.
Both programs will face new and stricter work requirements, and states will be forced to share part of the cost of Snap for the first time ever. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill's Medicaid changes could cost as many as 11.8 million people their healthcare, and the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities forecasts about 8 million people, or one in five recipients, may lose their Snap benefits.
The GOP argues that the bill will not cut Medicaid or Snap, but weed out 'waste, fraud and abuse' thereby making the programs more efficient. At one point, House speaker Mike Johnson circulated research from the conservative American Enterprise Institute finding that, after sleeping, playing video games was how Medicaid recipients who do not work spend most of their time.
If they did not act, Republicans warned, the 2017 tax cuts would expire this year, many Americans would be forced to pay more, and economic growth would suffer. However, analyses of the law found that it was the highest earners who felt most of the benefit from the tax regimen.
Bigelow warns that the benefit cuts will be the most widespread effect of the bill. Her center's research found that 34% of the country's population will be negatively affected by the bill, mostly through the Snap and Medicaid cuts, while just under 2% of taxpayers are in the income bracket that will get most of the tax relief.
And though the bill cuts taxes on tips, overtime and car loan interest, they only to last through 2028.
Even Americans who do not interact with federal safety programs could feel the economic effects of its retrenchment. Fewer Snap enrollees could mean less business for grocery stores, while rural hospitals could be hard hit by the Medicaid cuts, even with a $50bn fund included in the bill to help those in poor financial shape.
Robert Manduca, a University of Michigan sociology professor, forecast a $120bn per year hit to local economies from the benefit cuts. Employees and business owners, he warned, 'might see their job become less secure because the demand in their local economy is getting reduced'.
Paradoxically, the bill is still hugely expensive. The CBO forecasts it will add $3.3tn to the deficit through 2034, mostly due to the tax cuts. For fiscal hawks concerned about the sustainability of the country's budget deficit, which has yawned higher in recent years as Washington DC battled the Covid-19 pandemic with massive fiscal stimulus, there's little beauty in Trump's bill.
'Yes, the economy may well enjoy a sugar-high the next couple of years, as borrowing stimulates near-term consumption,' said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for lowering the deficit.
'But a sugar-high won't be sustained, it will do real damage, and often what comes next is the crash. The longer-term health of our economy, American families, and our children will be worse off due to this debt-financed bill.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk tok about launching im own new political party
Elon Musk tok about launching im own new political party

BBC News

time41 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Elon Musk tok about launching im own new political party

Elon Musk tok say e go launch new political party, weeks afta e quarrel wit US President Donald Trump. Di billionaire announce for im social media platform X say e don set up di America Party, e dey stand as a challenge to di Republican and Democratic two-party system. However, e dey unclear if de don formally register di party wit US election authorities. Musk, wey dem born outside of di US dey ineligible to run for di US presidency, but e neva tok who go lead di party. E first raise di prospect of forming a party during im public fight wit Trump, e leave im role in di administration and engage in serious public criticism wit im former ally. During dat time, Musk post one poll on X wia im ask users if dem want new political party in di US. Referencing di poll for one post on Saturday, Musk write: "By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you go get am! "Wen e come to bankrupting our kontri wit waste & graft, we live in one-party system, no be democracy. "Today, dem form America Party to give you back your freedom." As of Saturday, di Federal Electoral Commission neva publish any documents indicating the party had been formally registered. While high-profile players dey outside di traditional two-party system in US politics, e dey difficult for dem make dem gain strong enough nationwide popularity to pose real threat. In di presidential election last year, candidates from di likes of Libertarian Party, di Green Party and di People Party all try in vain to stop Trump or im Democratic rival, Kamala Harris, from winning. Musk was until recently core supporter of Trump, dancing alongside am during election rallies last year and e bring of one im pikin, four-year-old son to meet Trump in di Oval Office. E dey among Trump key financial backer: Musk spend $250m (£187m) to help am regain office. Afta di election, e appoint am to lead di so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), wey dey cut di federal budget. Elon and Trump fallout start wen he leave di administration in May and publicly criticise Trump tax and spending plans. Di legislation - wey Trump call "big, beautiful bill" - narrowly passed by Congress and di president sign am into law dis week. Di massive law include huge spending commitments and tax cuts, and e go add more than $3tn to di US deficit ova di next decade. Crucially for Musk, wey be di owner of electric-vehicle giant Tesla, Trump bill no focus on green transition or subsidies for products like Teslas. "Elon fit get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far," Trump write for im social media site, Truth Social, dis week. "Without subsidies, Elon go probably need to shop and head back home to South Africa." Trump threaten say Doge go look into subsidies in favour of Musk companies, e dey also tok about di billionaire oda businesses. Musk na also di owner of SpaceX, whey don launch rockets for di US goment, and Starlink, wey dey provide satellite service for US and European defence forces.

Dynamic pricing is coming to next year's USA World Cup and 'Y'all are going to hate it'
Dynamic pricing is coming to next year's USA World Cup and 'Y'all are going to hate it'

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Dynamic pricing is coming to next year's USA World Cup and 'Y'all are going to hate it'

The claim from those who have seen the service in US venues and franchises is that revenues can be raised by as much as 25 per cent over a season. The arrival of Lionel Messi in MLS is the phenomenon that dynamic pricing loves. When Inter Miami played away at Sporting Kansas City in January, the home team switched the game from their 16,000-capacity Children's Mercy Park to the 76,000 Arrowhead Stadium, home of the NFL's Chiefs. They sold more than 72,000 tickets, the fourth-highest crowd of all-time for an MLS regular-season game. In April, Chicago Fire, who play at the NFL Bears' Soldier Field, drew a record attendance of 62,358 for the visit of Messi. Parts of the stadium usually closed off were sold. But dynamic pricing also embodies the kind of cynical ticketing policies that would cause outright revolt at some Premier League clubs. Even in the US there is some concern. Franchises have sought to address that by excluding some sections of the ground from dynamic pricing, or by preventing certain tickets from being available for resale. It has been suggested that Conor McGregor's biggest UFC fights in Las Vegas at the height of his fame were ticketed in such a way as to make sure they were affordable to some of his Irish fanbase. The noise and colour they brought was considered to be a vital part of the show. But generally speaking, those who have seen the operation close-up say that Americans have a greater acceptance that venues and franchises will squeeze the last cent out of hot ticket events. 'There is a kind of forgiveness that the man is going to screw me,' says one source. 'Dynamic pricing is definitely more franchise-friendly than fan-friendly.' Curiously, the view is that there will be no problems selling tickets for Gianni Infantino's 48-team 2026 World Cup finals, part of a new sporting era in the US. The Los Angeles summer Olympics follow in 2028 and then the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City in 2034. 'The brand of the World Cup is a lot stronger than the Club World Cup,' a source says. Sales will also start much sooner than they did for the Club World Cup, with the draw for the finals in December. The City fans who had bought quarter-final tickets for Orlando on Friday may have to take a loss on the resale – if they can sell them at all. In Philadelphia, where Chelsea played Palmeiras at the 76,000 capacity Lincoln Financial Field, there was competition across the road at the home of the city's Major League Baseball team, the Phillies, who were playing Cincinnati Reds on an early afternoon start. On this occasion the ticketing algorithm seemed to be working in favour of the football fan. They will doubtless come to learn that dynamic pricing is designed so that, most of the time, it is the house that wins.

The UN is our best defence against a third world war. As Trump wields the axe, who will fight to save it?
The UN is our best defence against a third world war. As Trump wields the axe, who will fight to save it?

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

The UN is our best defence against a third world war. As Trump wields the axe, who will fight to save it?

The United Nations and its agencies have long struggled with funding shortfalls. Now an entrenched problem is becoming an acute crisis in the shadow of Donald Trump's executioner's axe. The US is the biggest contributor, at 22%, to the UN's core budget. In February, the White House announced a six-month review of US membership of all international organisations, conventions and treaties, including the UN, with a view to reducing or ending funding – and possible withdrawal. The deadline for decapitation falls next month. Trump's abolition of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and scrapping of most aid programmes, has already badly damaged UN-led and UN-backed humanitarian operations, which rely on discretionary funding. Yet Trump's axe symbolises a more fundamental threat – to multilateralism and the much-battered international rules-based order. The basic concept of collective responsibility for maintaining global peace and security, and collaboration in tackling shared problems – embodied by the UN since its creation 80 years ago last week – is on the chopping block. The stakes are high – and Washington is not the only villain. Like the US, about 40 countries are behind in paying obligatory yearly dues. Discretionary donations are declining. The UN charter, a statement of founding principles, has been critically undermined by failure to halt Russia's illegal war of aggression in Ukraine (and by last month's US-Israeli attack on Iran). China and others, including the UK, ignore international law when it suits. The number and longevity of conflicts worldwide is rising; UN envoys are sidelined; UN peacekeeping missions are disparaged. The security council is often paralysed by vetoes; the general assembly is largely powerless. By many measures, the UN isn't working. A crunch looms. If the UN is allowed to fail or is so diminished that its agencies cannot fully function, there is nothing to take its place. Nothing, that is, except the law of the jungle, as seen in Gaza and other conflict zones where UN agencies are excluded, aid workers murdered and legal norms flouted. The UN system has many failings, some self-inflicted. But a world without the UN would, for most people in most places, be more dangerous, hungrier, poorer, unhealthier and less sustainable. The US is not expected to withdraw from the UN altogether (although nothing is impossible with this isolationist, ultra-nationalist president). But Trump's hostile intent is evident. His 2026 budget proposal seeks a 83.7% cut – from $58.7bn to $9.6bn – in all US international spending. That includes an 87% reduction in UN funding, both obligatory and discretionary. 'In 2023, total US spending on the UN amounted to about $13bn. This is equivalent to only 1.6% of the Pentagon's budget that year ($816bn) – or about two-thirds of what Americans spend on ice-cream annually,' Stewart Patrick of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted. Economic development aid, disaster relief and family planning programmes would be gutted. The impact is potentially world-changing. Key UN agencies in the firing line include the children's fund, Unicef – at a time when the risks facing infants and children are daunting; the World Food Programme (WFP), which could lose 30% of its staff; agencies handling refugees and migration, which are also shrinking; the International court of justice (the 'world court'), which has shone a light on Israel's illegal actions in Gaza; and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iran's and others' nuclear activities. Trump is already boycotting the World Health Organization, the Palestinian relief agency (Unrwa) and the UN Human Rights Council, and has rescinded $4bn allocated to the UN climate fund, claiming that all act contrary to US interests. If his budget is adopted this autumn, the UN's 2030 sustainable development goals may prove unattainable. US financial backing for international peacekeeping and observer missions in trouble spots such as Lebanon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kosovo, currently 26% of total spending, will plunge to zero. The withdrawal of USAID support is already proving lethal, everywhere from Somalia and Sudan to Bangladesh and Haiti. UN officials describe the situation in post-earthquake, conflict-riven, aid-deprived Myanamar as a 'humanitarian catastrophe'. Research published in the Lancet found that Trump's cuts could cause more than 14m additional deaths by 2030, a third of them children. The WFP, the world's largest food aid supplier, says its projected $8.1bn funding deficit this year comes as acute hunger affects a record 343 million people in 74 countries. And other donor states are failing to fill the gap left by the US. So far in 2025, only 11% of the $46.2bn required for 44 UN-prioritised crises has been raised. The UK recently slashed its aid budget by £6bn, to pay for nuclear bombs. UN chiefs acknowledge that many problems pre-date Trump. António Guterres, the secretary general, has initiated thousands of job cuts as part of the 'UN80' reform plan to consolidate operations and reduce the core budget by up to 20%. But, marking the anniversary, Guterres said the gravest challenge is the destructive attitude of member states that sabotage multilateral cooperation, break the rules, fail to pay their share and forget why the UN was founded in the first place. 'The charter of the United Nations is not optional. It is not an à la carte menu. It is the bedrock of international relations,' he said. Guterres says the UN's greatest achievement since 1945 is preventing a third world war. Yet respected analysts such as Fiona Hill believe it's already begun. The UK and other democracies face some pressing questions. Will they meekly give in to Trump once again? Or will they fight to stop this renegade president and rogue states such as Russia and Israel dismantling the world's best defence against global anarchy, forever wars and needless suffering? Will they fight to save the UN? Simon Tisdall is a Guardian columnist

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store