Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a bounteous boondoggle
He is increasing our debt to give tax handouts to the rich; next they'll say we have to address it by cutting programs that help the poor
Conservatives have used the phrase “starve the beast” since the late 1970s. With the “beast” in question being the government, the idea is that conservatives can destroy programs which regulate business and provide welfare to the poor by cutting taxes so extremely that it (a) deprives the federal government of revenue, running up debt and creating an argument for cuts and (b) making programs less effective and therefore disparaging the government’s effectiveness — i.e., describing it as a “beast.”
The term “starve the bast” was coined in 1979 by Jerry Wilhelm, a city councilman from Santa Rosa, California, during a forum sponsored by the Libertarian Party. Wilhelm had been elected as an independent and two years later resigned in frustration because he was on the losing end of too many city council votes.
Today Wilhelm’s philosophy isn’t just in power, although describing it as “in power” would be an understatement. The policy of “starving the beast” prevails over the Supreme Court (6 Republicans versus 3 Democrats, all lifetime appointments), Congress (both the Senate and House are dominated by Republicans) and executive branch (the president is Donald Trump). Through DOGE, an agency set up by the world’s richest man (Elon Musk), all of these branches have committed to ending or rolling back essential programs involved in causes that (a) help the poor and otherwise marginalized and do so (b) against the wealthy and otherwise privileged: protecting the environment (particularly addressing climate change), dispensing foreign aid (such as fighting HIV/Aids), providing benefits to veterans, coordinating homelessness policy and even implementing mass layoffs of many of the world’s top scientists at the Department of Health and Human Services
Trump, Musk and their supporters all claim DOGE has saved money, but this is a lie. They uncovered exactly zero fraud — indeed, as I uncovered here, they focus on the idea of “fraud” in large part so they can raid America’s largest program, Social Security, for its massive $2.6 trillion in revenue — and even by their own (notoriously unreliable) estimate the entirety of their efforts have only saved $140 billion, far short of the $2 trillion they initially claimed.
Yet even if they did save that $140 billion (which, again, is almost certainly not true), that will be more than offset by Trump’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. (Please don’t click away because I wrote that; it’s the name Trump gave the bill, not me.) To understand why, I quote economist Howard Gleckman from his recent interview with FactCheck.org.
Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us in an email that the House bill “not only is not the largest deficit reduction in 30 years, it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit by any reasonable estimate. It is one of the biggest peacetime increases in the debt in history.” (Emphasis is his.)
“The biggest reason, by far, is the tax cut,” Gleckman said, referring to the extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the bill’s other measures, including no tax on tips or overtime, a tax deduction for those 65 and older, and a deduction for interest on loans for cars made in the U.S.
The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model arrived at a similar figure as CRFB for the deficit increase in its review of the House bill. “We estimate the House-passed reconciliation bill increases primary deficits by $2.8 trillion [emphasis added] over 10 years. GDP rises slightly, as labor supply and savings respond to a reduced safety net, but the dynamic score is larger ($3.2 trillion) than the conventional,” PWBM reported. (Emphasis is PWBM’s.)
The “One Big Beautiful Bill” (ugh) increases spending on the military and border security, but imposes draconian cuts on Medicare, food stamps and other programs that poor people rely on. This is a realization of the Wilhelm dream.
In the year 1980 — sandwiched between Wilhelm’s influential speech and his indignant resignation — America chose to embrace the “starve the beast” approach by electing Republican Ronald Reagan over the incumbent president, Democratic Jimmy Carter. I’ve argued that this moment was a turning point in world history because Reagan so vehemently opposed Carter’s agenda when it came to fighting income inequality, protecting the environment and implementing a foreign policy based around humanitarian values. When I spoke to Carter about Trump’s presidency in 2018, he elaborated on this.
"I think that under Trump the government is worse than it has been before," Carter told me by email at the time. "This is the first time I remember when the truth is ignored, allies are deliberately aggravated, China, Europe, Mexico and Canada are hurt economically and have to hurt us in response, Americans see the future worse than the present, and immigrants are treated cruelly."
Carter added, "We still have the same crises of that time, plus a serious loss of faith in democracy, the truth, treating all people as equals, each generation believing life would be better, America has a good system of justice, etc.”
All of these things — helping low-income people in our country, using our resources to assist the needy overseas, protecting the environment, telling the truth, being good to our allies, showing kindness to immigrants and protecting democracy — are inextricably linked with each other. If you oppose these policies, you oppose showing compassion to groups you have decided are “less human”: Immigrants, foreigners, poor people, environmentalists, government workers who get laid off
If you support them, it means you recognize every human being is inherently equal. We all deserve a hand up when we are down, regardless of where to live, because we share a vulnerable planet that we must protect.
Regardless of who wins, though, we must not forget that Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” isn’t a boon for ordinary Americans. It’s a bounteous boondoggle.
Back Seat Socialism
Column by Matthew Rozsa who is a professional journalist for more than 13 years. Currently he is writing a book for Beacon Press, "Neurosocialism," which argues that autistic people like the author struggle under capitalism, and explains how neurosocialism - the distinct anticapitalist perspective one develops by living as a neurodiverse individual - can be an important organizing principle for the left.