Big Beautiful Bills

I owe the readers an update on my criticism of this bill and what I have learned from reading it and talking to people who live in this alien legislative world.

The discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) has been a chaotic swirl of misinformation, hyperbole, and misplaced assumptions. For weeks, the battle for our eyes, ears, and minds has been dominated by voices—some prominent, some well-intentioned—that have gotten it wrong. I’ll admit, I was among them. After slogging through all 1,038 pages of the bill and still finding myself confused, I turned to trusted contacts: former colleagues from my time as Chairman of the Summit County GOP, as well as insiders in the offices of a Utah Senator and a Representative. These conversations, coupled with insights from today’s Ruthless podcast, have reshaped my understanding.

Elon Musk, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and I were wrong about the BBB. I owe it to you to tell you why I think that and why it matters.

First, let’s clarify what the BBB is—and isn’t. The BBB is a reconciliation bill, not an appropriations or spending bill. Reconciliation bills, by design, are limited to addressing taxes and entitlements and require only 51 votes to pass in the Senate, rather than the usual 60-vote supermajority—a threshold the GOP should be able to meet. This is a critical distinction that many critics, myself included, initially overlooked. Expectations that the BBB would tackle broader Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiatives—like sweeping deregulation or structural reforms—were misplaced. Those goals, while vital, simply cannot be addressed through the reconciliation process. Mischaracterizing the bill’s scope has fueled much of the outrage, and it’s time to set the record straight, even if my perspective is shaped by the limits of a Mississippi public school and university education.

One of the most pervasive claims about the BBB is that it balloons the federal deficit. This is, frankly, a distortion—a lie told with numbers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), often cited in these arguments, uses a static scoring model that fails to account for dynamic economic effects. For example, when tax rates are lowered, economic activity often increases, leading to higher tax revenues over time. The CBO, however, treats reduced tax rates as a direct loss of government revenue, as if the economy remains static. This flawed methodology leads to misleading conclusions about the BBB’s fiscal impact.

Consider the Trump tax cuts, which serve as a baseline for comparison. The CBO assumes that if tax rates revert to their pre-2017 levels (as they were set to do, since those cuts were temporary), any decision to maintain lower rates is equivalent to “spending.” In other words, if the government spends the same amount in 2025 as it did in 2016 but collects less tax revenue due to lower rates, the CBO counts the difference as an increase in the deficit. This logic is maddeningly reductive. It assumes all money belongs to the government by default, and any tax relief granted to citizens is a handout that exacerbates the deficit. In reality, the BBB does not increase spending; it adjusts tax policy within the constraints of reconciliation, and claims of deficit explosion are rooted in the CBO’s outdated assumptions.

My conversations with staffers in the offices of one of Utah Senators and Representatives underscor another key point: the BBB’s critics have often conflated its provisions with broader frustrations about federal overreach. These are valid concerns, but they belong in a different legislative vehicle. Reconciliation bills are not omnibus spending packages where every policy priority can be shoehorned in. By focusing on taxes and entitlements, the BBB addresses specific fiscal levers—ones that, contrary to popular rhetoric, do not inherently drive up debt. Much of the bill’s criticism stems from a misunderstanding of its narrow scope.

So why does this matter? Because misinformation about the BBB distracts from real debates about government efficiency and fiscal responsibility. When figures like Musk, Paul, or Massie—whose skepticism of government bloat I often share—misframe the bill, it muddies the waters. As someone who has been wrong about this, I feel a responsibility to my readers to correct the record. The BBB isn’t perfect, but in my opinion, it’s not the deficit-busting boondoggle it’s been made out to be.

Prominent Republicans like Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Chip Roy are not thrilled with the BBB, and I share their desire for more conservative reforms. Congressional Republicans must act swiftly to pass other bills in their appropriate forms to address critical issues, like curbing the usurpation of executive power by Article III courts. We shouldn’t wait for Chief Justice John Roberts to act when Congress has the authority to tackle these problems. Elected officials need to prove they can multitask—walk and chew gum at the same time.

The BBB represents a “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” moment. If it doesn’t pass, the economy risks crashing at 70 miles per hour. If it does, we might still hit a wall, but at a slower 35 miles per hour. Preserving the Trump tax cuts is critical, as they underpin the Trump/Bessent economic recovery plan. Without them, the plan unravels.

Generations of Democrat and GOP politicians have left us with limited options, but we must make the best of them. The BBB, for all its flaws, seems a necessary step. It’s not the whole fight, but it’s the one in front of us. Make up your own mind, but let’s focus on the right battles, armed with the right facts.