For release: 06/03/25
The one, big, ugly bill
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Content Agency
After many years living in and covering Washington, there is one overriding principle I have learned: If you don’t trust politicians you will never be disappointed.
President Trump and the House Republican leadership promised that what Trump called “the one, big, beautiful bill” would, among other things, reduce the $36 trillion federal debt. No less an expert than the non-politician Elon Musk told CBS News: “I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit.” Musk’s remarks came as he announced he is severing his relationship with DOGE, which exposed billions of dollars in government waste, fraud and abuse. It will be difficult to find the shameful misspending uncovered by DOGE in this bill, perhaps because it may not be included. Federal judges are blocking some of the proposed spending cuts, which only adds to the problem, allowing the deficit and debt to increase.
Massive debt is a relatively new phenomenon. According to the U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data, the last time the federal government had a balanced budget was in 2001. Before that, balanced budgets were achieved in 1969, 1998, 1999 and 2000. It’s not impossible to balance the budget. What is lacking is the will.
The bill certainly is big, more than 1,100 pages as now written. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it’s worth a second and third look. That large a bill means many won’t read it, which is what politicians no doubt hope will happen. It’s how they sneak through spending they otherwise might not be able to defend if it were exposed.
While the bill now goes to the Senate, which is likely to make major changes, it does include some spending cuts (but not nearly enough) and revenue enhancements. The Tax Foundation (TF) is not impressed by the hype from the president and House Republican leaders: “Rather than making the most pro-growth features permanent, the bill spends far too much money on political gimmicks and carveouts, resulting in a package that provides a modest boost to the economy but at a huge fiscal cost.”
As if the tax code isn’t long and complicated enough, this bill makes it even more so. Again, the TF analysis says “(The bill sends) taxpayers through a maze of new rules and compliance costs that in many cases probably outweigh any potential tax benefits. No tax on tips, overtime, and car loans comes with various conditions and guard rails that, if enacted, will likely require hundreds of pages of IRS guidance to interpret.”
The federal tax code is already 6,871 pages long and extremely complex. If tax regulations are added, which are the Treasury Department’s interpretation of the code, the pages balloon to 75,000.
What about Trump’s promise of no tax on Social Security benefits? The Wall Street Journal reports the bill only contains a “half measure,” giving seniors “a temporary extra deduction of $4 thousand … But this alternative… would leave many people still paying income taxes on Social Security benefits.”
A flat tax and mandating balanced budgets except in wartime, is the answer to all of this. It would simplify everything and end the frustration many feel each April 15, trying to understand forms and regulations that make a foreign language you haven’t studied seem easier to understand.
That isn’t likely to happen, because Members of Congress have used the tax code and spending for decades to favor certain constituencies that help keep them in office. As long as that is the primary goal of so many politicians, the bills they pass are likely to remain big, but more ugly than beautiful.
Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).
(C) 2025 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
