GOP tax bill would cost poor Americans $1,600 a year and boost highest earners by $12,000, CBO says
Middle-income households would see a boost of roughly $500 to $1,000 per year under Republican President Donald Trump's tax bill, the CBO found.
The cuts to the lowest-income households come from proposed cuts to social safety net programs including Medicaid and a food assistance program for lower-income people, known as Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program.
The bill also proposes expanding work requirements to receive food aid and new 'community engagement requirements' of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents to receive Medicaid. Some proposed tax breaks would be temporary, including a tax break on tips and overtime, car loan interest and a $4,000 increase in the standard deduction for seniors.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other Republicans have sought to discredit the CBO's analyses of the bill and say that the U.S. could head toward economic catastrophe if the measure is not passed. GOP Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo said during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday that the tax bill 'recognizes the solution to our debt crisis is not to tax Americans more, it is to spend less.'
'The legislation recognizes that extending proven tax reform is critical for working families,' he said.
Administration officials have said the the cost of the tax bill would be offset by tariff income. Recently, the CBO separately estimated that Trump's sweeping tariff plan would cut deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period while shrinking the economy, raising the inflation rate and reducing the purchasing power of households overall.
The CBO was established more than 50 years ago to provide objective, impartial analysis to support the budget process. It is required to produce a cost estimate for nearly every bill approved by a House or Senate committee and will weigh in earlier when asked to do so by lawmakers.
The office's analysis released Thursday considers Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' in isolation, excluding the potential impact of the tariffs that Trump has imposed and paused on nations around the world.
Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, who requested the CBO analysis released Thursday, said in a statement that 'this would be one of the largest transfers of wealth from working families to the ultra-rich in American history. It's shameful.'
Hussein writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How reliable is the jobs data? Economists and Wall Street still trust it
WASHINGTON (AP) — The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were 'RIGGED' to make him and other Republicans 'look bad.' Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large — the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them. 'The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable,' Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. 'We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. 'Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market.' Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says 'it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid.' The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers — when they are good. These are the figures is Trump attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to 'boost' Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory," yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations — including multiple locations for the same business — covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest — outside recessions — since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday and said, 'What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers.' Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: 'When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed.' Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. 'We are at an inflection point,' the report said. 'To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Politico
18 minutes ago
- Politico
The Great Gerrymander War: California fires back at Texas power play
'I know the last thing Riverside County residents want is to eliminate the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and replace it with insider Sacramento politicians gerrymandering district lines behind closed doors,' Calvert said in a statement. When Newsom initially floated a California gerrymander to neutralize Texas, the reaction last month was a mix of enthusiasm and deep skepticism about the legal and political hurdles, given California's use of an independent redistricting commission. But as it became clear that Texas Republicans were unlikely to back down, Newsom pressed the issue, making California the tip of the spear for a counteroffensive embraced by Democrats at all levels of the party. Those dynamics make it likely the Democratic-dominated Legislature votes this month to put a new map on the ballot. While some expressed misgivings Sunday about a rushed process — to secure a November election, lawmakers will need to act quickly — several statehouse Democrats predicted they would muster the necessary two-thirds votes in each house. 'It's not a fight any of us want to be in, but we're in it, so we're going to fight,' said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland. 'Nothing,' she added, 'unites the California Democratic caucus quite like Donald Trump.' But getting Sacramento Democrats on board is one thing. Persuading California voters will be entirely different — particularly because they would be asked to return line-drawing power to politicians, letting the Legislature craft new lines until the commission takes over again in 2031 after the next census. 'Voters want to weigh in on redistricting because they don't trust politicians,' said Chris Lehman, a political consultant who has worked on redistricting ballot initiatives. A survey conducted by Newsom pollster David Binder found that 52 percent of California voters would approve of state lawmakers redrawing its congressional district lines if Texas Republicans pulled off a similar gambit. The measure becomes more popular if the fight becomes more overtly partisan; 60 percent of voters back 'rejecting Trump's power grab.' Roughly eight in 10 Democrats and six in 10 independents are in favor of the effort, according to a person who was briefed on the poll's findings. The messages tested in the poll underscore how California Democrats will portray this as a fight they have no choice but to take on. The proposed ballot measure would be contingent on Texas' new districts being enacted. 'The polling shows that Californians overwhelmingly reject Trump's blatant power grab in Texas and want to fight back. The basic components of the program we are considering has strong support,' said Los Angeles-area Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, another Democrat. A successful ballot campaign would still require a titanic political effort. Assuming the Legislature acts, Newsom and allies will have just a few months to raise tens of millions of dollars and educate voters on a sudden, off-year election. Republican foes could be motivated to throw down. With little else on the ballot, that could yield an enormously expensive showdown. 'That'll be the big question mark,' said Brandon Castillo, a political consultant who specializes in ballot initiatives. 'Does that national money pour in, on both sides?'
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Massive AI spending shows early payoff for Big Tech
After months of questions about whether major tech firms were overshooting AI spending, Google, Microsoft and Meta are taking a victory lap after outperforming investors' lofty expectations. 'It's showing it's starting to pay off and companies are doubling down,' Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said, adding, 'It puts fuel in the engine for tech to rally more in the second half [of the year].' Major tech firms promised eye-popping investments in AI heading into 2025, as they pushed to build out the data center infrastructure that is expected to underpin the development of frontier AI models — a frenzy reinforced by President Trump's own AI infrastructure push. These investments, already under scrutiny because of their sheer size, faced additional pressure earlier this year with the emergence of DeepSeek. The Chinese AI startup released its R1 model, which it claimed could compete with top American AI models and was developed with a fraction of the infrastructure. However, the tech giants seem to have quieted critics so far with the results of their spending. Google kicked off a series of strong tech earnings last week, beating investor expectations with $96 billion in revenue and $28 billion in net income last quarter. The search giant, which initially planned to invest $75 billion in capital spending this year, also upped the ante with an additional $10 billion investment. This raised the bar for Microsoft and Meta coming into this week, said Dave Wagner, head of equity and portfolio manager at Aptus Capital Advisors. Microsoft did not disappoint, reporting $76 billion in revenue and $27 billion in net income last quarter. The company's cloud computing platform Azure surpassed $75 billion in revenue for the fiscal year, up 39 percent year-over-year in the last quarter. It also announced plans to invest another $30 billion in capital spending next quarter, after spending about $88 billion over the past year. The company's stock jumped Thursday on the strong earnings report, briefly boosting the company's market valuation above $4 trillion. It is only the second company in the world to cross the historic threshold, following Nvidia's lead last month.
