New PPI Report Finds Tech and E-Commerce Sectors Are a Powerful Engine for Local Resilience

WASHINGTON  —  As concerns about a slowing economy mount, a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) highlights counties where the tech, information, and e-commerce (TIE) sector is driving growth.

Titled The 2025 PPI Tech/Info/E-Commerce Job Index: Fighting Recession on the Local Level,” by PPI Vice President and Chief Economist Michael Mandel, the report identifies the top U.S. counties by their ability to create new TIE jobs relative to overall employment. The findings suggest that regions with a strong TIE presence are not only generating high-paying jobs more rapidly, but also fueling broader economic expansion. 

“These findings show that investment in TIE industries can catalyze inclusive economic gains across a wide range of communities,” said Mandel.

The report arrives at a critical moment as sloppy budget cuts, tariff uncertainty, and tighter immigration policies could lead to a recession in the near future. The continued expansion of AI, cloud computing, and e-commerce logistics — all TIE industries — provides a potential counterweight to potential economic turmoil.

Key findings from the report include:

  • TIE sector employment has grown 18% nationally since 2019, more than four times the rate of other private-sector jobs.
  • Average weekly pay in TIE industries is 47% higher than in the broader private sector.
  • The top 25 counties on PPI’s TIE Index achieved a median 5.8% increase in non-TIE private sector jobs from 2019 to 2023, compared to just 0.3% for other large and medium counties.
  • Top performers include San Joaquin County, California; Collin County, Texas; and Somerset County, New Jersey.

PPI’s TIE Job Index, an evolution of its Tech/Info Job Index, combines employment growth with sector size to rank county-level performance. It reveals strong correlations between robust TIE ecosystems and overall job creation — even outside traditional tech hubs.

“While we don’t claim causation, the link is striking,” said Mandel. “Counties with strong TIE sectors tend to grow faster not just in high-wage tech jobs, but across the board.”

Read and download the report here.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

The 2025 PPI Tech/Info/Ecommerce Job Index: Fighting Recession on the Local Level

INTRODUCTION

The evidence of the past two decades is clear. The tech/info/ ecommerce (TIE) sector — which we will define below — and the closely related tech/info subsector, have consistently produced faster job gains, at higher pay, than the rest of the economy.

Focusing on the period since 2019, the tech/info/ecommerce sector has become essential as a source of good jobs. Propelled by massive investments in cloud computing, artificial intelligence and broadband, tech/info industries such as software, computer systems design, and computing infrastructure have generated hundreds of thousands of new jobs. In addition, ecommerce industries have added roughly 900,000 jobs over the same stretch.

All told, tech/info/ecommerce employment has risen by 18% since 2019, compared to a 4% gain in the rest of the private sector. Moreover, average weekly pay in the TIE sector is 47% higher than other private sector jobs.

That’s on the national level — what about the impact of tech/info/ecommerce jobs on local economies? We’ll show in this paper that counties with a strong TIE presence have stronger job growth in the rest of the private sector as well.

In particular, we will show that the top 25 counties, as ranked by the PPI Tech/Info/Ecommerce Job Index, reported a median non-TIE private sector job gain of 5.8% between 2019 and 2023. That’s compared with a median 0.3% gain for the remaining large and medium counties. The somewhat narrower PPI Tech/Info Job Index showed a similar difference in job growth between high-ranking counties and everyone else.

The implication: With recession now a possibility, counties with a strong TIE presence are better positioned to weather an economic slowdown.

Read the full report.

Weinstein Jr. for Forbes: More Colleges Freeze Hiring And Suspend Salary Increases

Colleges and universities continue to look for ways to cut spending because of the Trump Administration’s policies towards higher education.

One June 2nd, Johns Hopkins University announced a set of policies to prepare for a possible decline in revenue. They join a list of schools including Brown University, Duke University, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Washington, and the University of California system, that have temporarily paused hiring and vow to hold off on capital spending.

Hopkins has already seen $850 million in grant cuts resulting from the culling of USAID and other program terminations, plus the school has a large number of international students (many who pay full tuition) who may be dissuaded from studying in the U.S. due to the Administration’s more restrictive visa policies.

Keep reading in Forbes.

House Republicans Rub SALT into Deficit Wounds

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

Among many problems with the “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed last week by House Republicans is that it would increase the cost and regressivity of the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction. The bill would increase the SALT cap from the $10,000 it is today to $40,000 for households making under $500,000, with all thresholds continuing to grow for the next decade. Congressman Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of the House GOP’s biggest advocates for expanding SALT, triumphantly declared after the bill’s passage that “for the middle class, this is a real win.” But in reality, the main beneficiaries of the change will be the affluent — not the middle class.

To even benefit from the increased SALT deduction, one has to itemize deductions on their tax return rather than take the standard deduction. But only about 10% of taxpayers do so, typically higher-income households that have enough deductions (like SALT, mortgage interest, or charitable giving) to make itemizing worthwhile. The remaining 90% — including most middle-class and nearly all lower-income Americans — take the standard deduction, which is currently $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for married couples.

As a result, it is primarily wealthy households that would benefit from a more generous SALT deduction. According to one analysis, a $40,000 SALT cap with a $500,000 income limit would most benefit households in the 95th to 99th income percentiles (the 95th percentile starts at approximately $316,000 in household income) who would see a 0.6% boost in after-tax income when compared to the current cap. Meanwhile, the bottom 80% of earners would see no meaningful benefit. Supporters may claim that the income cap reins in the regressivity of the deal, but in practice, it simply reorders which wealthy Americans are benefitting. While the ultra-wealthy are excluded under the income cap, extremely high-income professionals and upper-tier earners would still enjoy a sizable tax break that they hardly need. 

Moreover, Republicans’ SALT deal is an expensive addition to a bill that already adds more than $3 trillion to the deficit. Relative to an extension of the $10,000 cap put in place by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Republican plan would cost an additional $320 billion over ten years. Even relative to the previous SALT change in Republicans’ original legislative text — which would have raised the cap to $30,000 with a $400,000 income limit — the plan still costs an additional $150 billion. 

Supporters of raising or repealing the SALT cap claim that regardless of these downsides, it would be fundamentally unfair for the federal government to levy income taxes on money that is being used to pay state taxes. But this argument completely ignores that such practice is commonplace in the tax code. The federal government does not exempt payroll taxes before calculating income tax burdens, nor do states allow homeowners to deduct property taxes before calculating their other state tax obligations. Multiple layers of taxation are hardly a unique or unfair burden no matter what SALT defenders claim. 

The Senate should reject this expensive and regressive SALT expansion and replace it with something more fiscally responsible. Even better, they should add restrictions for business SALT deduction to the bill, which currently faces no limitations. The justification for why businesses should be able to deduct their state and local income taxes from federal income taxes is just as weak as the argument for individuals. 

No matter what Republicans clinging to districts in places like New York, New Jersey, and California say, the reality is that raising the SALT cap isn’t middle-class tax relief — it’s a costly giveaway to affluent households in a bill that already blows up the budget deficit far more than can be afforded. Congress should kill this SALT deal and replace it with a fiscally responsible alternative. 

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

A recent analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) finds that economic growth induced by the Republican tax plan would raise only $103 billion of additional revenue over 10 years — well short of the claimed $2.5 trillion. Notably, this estimate doesn’t factor in the damage the “One Big Beautiful Bill’s” massive deficits would do to economic growth, which the JCT warns will result in larger revenue losses over time.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI and the Center for Funding America’s Future

California Broadband Bill Misses Mark

The U.S. has one of the most dynamic broadband networks in the world. Providers have poured more than $500 billion into building and upgrading broadband networks since 2019. The price of internet access has dropped 10% over the past 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, even while the overall price level has soared. All together, the share of consumer spending going to telecom, broadband and related services fell from 3% in 2014 to 2.4% in 2024. Moreover, many providers offer robust, low-cost services for economically disadvantaged populations.

But a piece of legislation under consideration by the California State Assembly, AB 353 could derail this success story in the nation’s largest state. It would require California internet providers to offer “eligible households” internet at $15 or less per month (inclusive of any recurring taxes and fees) with at least 100 megabits per second downstream and 20 megabits per second upstream. “Eligible household” means at least one resident of the household participate in a long list of qualified public assistance programs.

This type of regulatory burden — actually writing a price ceiling into law — is likely to impede investment and expansion by both new and existing providers. If there’s anything that economics teaches us, it’s that price ceilings result in less service and fewer competitors rather than more. 

California already has one of the most competitive broadband markets in the country, with multiple providers offering a wide range of products, services and price points. This includes many that already offer low-cost services for families in need. Heavy-handed regulation will only serve to scare away investment and competitors, as recently seen in New York State.

From this perspective, AB 353 is a bad idea. However, if it is the intent of the legislature to proceed with some form of this bill, several commonsense changes should be made. These include narrower qualification standards, greater flexibility in speed requirements, and tying the price of the low-income service to the CPI. Additionally, to ensure a level playing field, the requirements of the legislation should apply to all broadband providers, regardless of whether they are public or privately owned. All of these would reduce the financial risk to providers, and thus not shut off the flow of future investment. 

House Republicans Pass ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Despite Several Big Red Flags

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

This piece originally appeared in Forbes and was written by PPI’s Ben Ritz.

House Republicans passed their “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” early Thursday morning in defiance of several warnings that it would have big negative consequences for the United States: bigger budget deficits, bigger borrowing costs, and bigger regressive wealth transfers than any other partisan reconciliation bill in history.

The bill would add more than $3 trillion to budget deficits over the next decade — a figure that would swell to more than $5 trillion if the nominally temporary policies within it are made permanent, as leading Republicans have made clear they intend. The timing could hardly be worse: Just last week, Moody’s became the final major credit-rating agency to downgrade U.S. government debt. Their rationale was clear: Washington’s failure to “reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs” has eroded confidence in America’s long-term fiscal trajectory. Since the announcement, yields on 20- and 30-year Treasury bonds even reached 5% —a threshold rarely seen over the past few decades.  

Rising yields have big consequences for the federal budget. Already, the federal government spends more on interest payments than on Defense or Medicare, making it the second-biggest line item in the budget after Social Security. If the “One Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law, interest costs over the next decade could be roughly $2.7 trillion bigger than the official scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office currently project. Within 30 years, not only would interest costs more than double as a share of economic output, but the national debt would grow to levels so big that CBO’s economic forecasting model could no longer function.

The effects on federal finances aren’t the only “big” problems with this bill. The bill’s main offsets come from big cuts to spending on anti-poverty programs, such as Medicaid and SNAP. Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office published an analysis showing the bill would increase after-tax incomes for people in the top 10% by roughly the same proportion as it would cut after-tax incomes for people in the bottom 10% —a big regressive transfer of wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest.

Read the full analysis in Forbes. 

Deeper Dive:

Fiscal Fact:

If the No Tax on Tips Act that passed the Senate this week becomes law, it could cost around $120 billion over 10 years — freeing up Republicans to enact more tax cuts for the rich of equal size in their “One Big Beautiful Bill” without paying for it. Furthermore, the bill would only provide a tax cut for the 2% of households that have a tipped job, while doing nothing for the millions of working-class families that don’t (besides saddling them with the costs). 

Other Fiscal News:

More from PPI and the Center for Funding America’s Future:

 

Ritz for Forbes: House Republicans Pass ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Despite Big Red Flags

House Republicans passed their “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” early Thursday morning in defiance of several warnings that it would have big negative consequences for the United States.

The “biggest” thing about the bill (beyond its 1,118-page length) is the more than $3 trillion that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates it would add to budget deficits over the next decade. That figure would swell to more than $5 trillion if the nominally temporary policies within it are made permanent, as leading Republicans have made clear they intend. No matter which measurement is used, this bill would be — by far — the biggest deficit increase in a partisan bill passed through the budget reconciliation process in U.S. history.

The timing could hardly be worse. Just last week, Moody’s became the final major credit-rating agency to downgrade U.S. government debt, following similar actions by S&P in 2011 and Fitch in 2023. Their rationale was clear: Washington’s failure to “reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs” has eroded confidence in America’s long-term fiscal trajectory and they “do not believe that material multi-year reductions in mandatory spending and deficits will result from current fiscal proposals under consideration.”

Read more in Forbes. 

Loss of AAA Rating for U.S. Credit Underscores Grave Consequences of Trump’s Budget-Busting Bill

WASHINGTON — Today, Ben Ritz, Vice President of Policy Development at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and Director of PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future, issued the following statement on Moody’s decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating from AAA:

“Even as all the other major ratings agencies downgraded U.S. credit over the past 15 years, Moody’s held firm in maintaining our government’s AAA credit rating. That today even Moody’s has lost its once-unshakable confidence in the sustainability of U.S. fiscal policy is more than a canary in the coal mine: America cannot afford a ‘big beautiful bill’ with policies that would add more than $5 trillion to our national credit card over the next decade if permanently enacted. No lawmaker who supports this budget-busting boondoggle or anything like it moving forward can call themselves a ‘deficit hawk’ ever again.”

Read more PPI analysis of the “Big Beautiful Bill” and its grave fiscal consequences:

Launched in 2018, the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future works to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. To that end, the Center develops fiscally responsible policy proposals to strengthen public investments in the foundation of our economy, modernize health and retirement programs to reflect an aging society, transform our tax code to reward work over wealth, and put the national debt on a downward trajectory.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.orgFind an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

The Data Center Boom

In a recent blog item, we estimated that in 2025, the five big tech companies — Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft — are projected to invest $240 billion in the U.S. in capital expenditures, primarily in AI-related data centers and equipment. Other large tech companies and investors are pouring huge amounts of money into new data centers as well. 

This tech and AI investment surge dramatically overshadows domestic investment from major manufacturing industries. For example, in 2023, the motor vehicle industry invested just $29 billion in U.S. structures and equipment, while the primary metals industry, including steel and aluminum, invested only $15 billion.

Indeed, data center construction is providing a much-needed boost to state economies. Consider Virginia, one of the leading locations for data centers. The 2024 report on “Data Centers in Virginia,” from the state’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, found that “the data center industry provides approximately 74,000 jobs, $5.5 billion in labor income, and $9.1 billion in Virginia GDP overall to the state economy annually.” That estimate was based on average spending by the industry between FY21 and FY23, prior to the AI boom. 

The Virginia report noted that data center revenue has allowed localities to lower real estate tax rates, construct new schools, and establish revenue stabilization or reserve funds. Moreover, “data centers are an attractive industry because they impose minimal direct costs on the provision of government services,” including local roads, and school systems. 

In recognition of the economic benefits of data centers, most states offer an exemption from sales tax for the equipment going into data centers. That’s analogous to the sales tax exemption most states offer for the purchase of manufacturing machinery to go into a factory. Texas, for example, exempts “certain items necessary to the operation of qualifying large data centers,” while also exempting “several types of items used in manufacturing products for sale, including materials that become part of the manufactured product” and equipment “necessary or essential to the manufacturing operation if it causes a physical or chemical change in the product being manufactured.”

Oddly enough, if more factories are built in a state where manufacturing machinery was exempt from sales tax, the nominal revenue loss from the sales tax exemption would rise, even as politicians would cheer. The same would be true if more data centers are built. 

This quirk in the accounting for tax expenditures can produce misleading headlines. For example, one recent report focused on the revenue loss from sales tax exemptions for data center purchases, highlighting Texas: “For example, in the space of just 23 months, Texas revised its FY 2025 cost projection from $130 million to $1 billion.” The report added: “We know of no other form of state spending that is so out of control.” 

But that’s an odd interpretation of good news. Clearly, the increase in the Texas projections was due to the AI boom, which added tens of billions of dollars in genuinely new data center construction in the state. This construction represents a true gain to the Texas economy, not a loss. For comparison, it should also be noted that the size of the sales tax exemption for machinery, equipment, and materials used in Texas manufacturing is projected to be $11.5 billion in FY25, and rising to $15 billion in FY30, reflecting the strength of manufacturing in Texas.

To summarize: A state sales tax exemption for data center equipment, like the one for manufacturing machinery, is designed to boost investment and jobs. Without the exemption, the investment in the state — and the contribution to the state economy — would be lower.

Cutting Credit: How Rate Caps Undermine Access for Working Americans

INTRODUCTION

As the inflation rate surged throughout 2021 and 2022 and put pressure on consumers’ wallets, another important trend was underway: credit card interest rates were rising. With the Federal Reserve raising the federal funds rate substantially to combat inflation, credit card interest rates climbed sharply in 2022 and 2023 as a result of the increased costs of lending, rising from an average of 14.51% in Q4 2021 to 21.19% just two years later. However, even as inflation subsided and prices stabilized, credit card interest rates remained elevated.

Why is this the case? Ultimately, credit card interest rates reflect the state of the broader consumer credit market. In recent years, that market has started showing signs of stress, particularly among less creditworthy borrowers, who have higher credit card debt and more frequent delinquencies. Higher market-wide risk — alongside a still high federal funds rate — has caused banks that issue credit cards to raise interest rates and keep them high.

Consumer discontent with these high rates has spurred a bipartisan effort to address the issue. In February 2025, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced legislation that would cap credit card interest rates at 10% for five years, claiming that the bill would provide “working families with desperately needed financial relief.” A 10% cap was also floated by Donald Trump on the campaign trail, to provide relief “while working Americans catch up.”

However, limiting credit card interest rates to an arbitrary 10% effectively deprives credit card issuers of their most powerful tool to manage risk. As a result, a rate cap would dramatically reduce access to credit for the very people it aims to protect, just as the economy teeters on the precipice of a recession. By significantly limiting their ability to qualify for and use credit, it would even cause many consumers to turn to predatory alternatives such as payday lenders.

The following sections of this paper dive into the consumer credit market and evaluate the different options policymakers can use to make it function better for working Americans. First, it reviews the current state of the market, highlighting the important role that consumer credit plays in the economy, how credit card issuers decide upon interest rates, and breaking down why interest rates have risen in recent years. Second, it explains the economics of rate caps, and how workingclass Americans would bear the brunt of a cap’s consequences. Lastly, the paper explores some better policy alternatives to protect consumers, including greater transparency, better financial capability for households, and alternatives to traditional credit.

Read the full report.

How Trump’s BBB is Shaping Up to Be an Even Bigger Mess Than Biden’s

Donald Trump was elected in 2024 on a promise to “End Inflation and Make America Affordable Again.” He criticized “Joe Biden’s reckless spending spree, which is more reckless than anybody’s ever done or had in the history of our country.” And he complained that the incumbent Democrat was guilty of “weak, ineffective, and virtually nonexistent leadership.” In survey after survey, voters made clear they largely agreed with Trump’s assessment. 

Perhaps no episode of Biden’s presidency better displayed the traits that fueled these criticisms than his failed effort to pass a sprawling “Build Back Better” domestic spending bill through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process in 2021. But as Congressional Republicans begin crafting a “big beautiful bill” to enact the bulk of Trump’s economic agenda through that process, there are early signs that they’re making all the same mistakes — or perhaps even more.

Although very different in their origins and ideological goals, these two BBBs have far more in common than just their initials. Both Biden’s BBB and Trump’s BBB seem crafted more to fulfill a lengthy wishlist for the president’s ideological allies than address a pressing national need. Both parties struggled to find a way to pay for these wishlists in large part because of shortsighted tax pledges their presidential nominee made during the previous campaign. Rather than right-sizing their ambitions, Republicans today are seeking to ram through their BBB using legislative tactics eerily reminiscent of those that backfired on Democrats in 2021. And both parties pursued their BBB with a cavalier disregard for their contributions to inflation, provoking voters’ ire on their top economic concern.

But there are many ways in which the 2025 Republican BBB is likely to be even more damaging — both economically and politically — by piling on debt and exacerbating inflation at a time when the country can least afford it. If Republicans continue going down this path, they risk betraying their electoral mandate to cut the cost of living and giving Democrats a perfect opportunity to regain something that’s long eluded them: public confidence on handling the economy.

BUDGET-BUSTING BILLS BACKFIRE WHEN THEY IGNITE INFLATION

After voters rewarded their parties with narrow but decisive victories in 2020 and 2024, respectively, both Biden and Trump believed they had a mandate to pass sweeping policies in partisan megabills through reconciliation. At the time of its passage, 63% of voters supported Biden’s first reconciliation bill — the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which was intended to support the economy through the final stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. But the inflationary effect of this bill drowned out the popularity of the individual policies contained within it and the subsequent legislation Biden sought to pass.

In an incisive post-mortem of the failures of Biden’s economic policy, Jason Furman — the former Chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors — explains how excessive government spending during the Biden Administration helped push inflation to heights not seen in decades. Moreover, this inflation effectively reversed the policy accomplishments Democrats thought Biden had achieved, such as by canceling out the spending increase from the bipartisan infrastructure law passed in 2021 or causing real wages to fall below their pre-pandemic level.

Inflation reversed not only the economic benefits of Biden’s policies but also their political benefits. Polling of working-class voters conducted later in the Biden administration by PPI found that 69% of respondents said the rising cost of living was the greatest economic challenge facing the United States, with 55% of those voters believing the primary cause was government overspending. No matter how popular Biden’s programs may have been in the abstract, voters didn’t support them at the expense of keeping the cost of living down. 

Democrats suffered both because the unpopularity of inflation outweighed the popularity of their policies, and because their programs were perceived as worsening it. That experience should be a warning for Republicans as they pursue their own party-line reconciliation bill. In isolation, any one of Trump’s proposed tax cuts may poll well. But if they worsen inflation and further increase the cost of living, Republicans are unlikely to reap any political benefits.

TWO FAILURES OF LEADERSHIP

Over the first 100 days of his second term, Donald Trump has repeated many of the missteps that Biden took toward developing budget-busting bills that worsened inflation and his party’s political prospects — starting with an inability to effectively lead. 

From the very beginning, Joe Biden’s economic agenda was undermined by the fact that neither he nor Congressional Democrats were willing to define top priorities and make trade-offs. When crafting the American Rescue Plan, they opted to pursue a $1.9 trillion price tag that several experts (including myself) warned was too big and likely to invite inflation. Subsequent reporting has revealed that Biden agreed to this figure not because he believed it was the was the right level of spending to meet the country’s macroeconomic needs, but because it was the amount Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer needed to fund a running list of requests from his members — and neither of them was willing to tell anyone “No.”

When it came time to craft a second reconciliation bill to implement their longer-term “Build Back Better” priorities, Democrats again struggled to prioritize. Previously successful party-line reconciliation bills focused on addressing a specific national goal, such as Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (health-care reform) or Donald Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (tax reform). In contrast, Biden’s BBB was a grab bag of policies from the wishlists of left-leaning interest groups and their Congressional champions. Voters had a hard time making sense of this mishmash of health care, energy, child care, infrastructure, education, elder care, tax policy, and more. 

Although polls found solid majorities in support of the constituent policies in Biden’s BBB, only about 40% of voters supported the package as a whole at the time it collapsed. Many Democrats still believe this disconnect — and the party’s generally low approval rating on economic issues throughout the Biden era — simply amount to a “messaging problem.” But the real explanation is that there is far more support for individual spending proposals in isolation than for doing all of them together, especially when voters were already blaming a lack of fiscal discipline for inflation. In the abstract, who doesn’t want to expand access to life-saving health care or reduce the financial burdens of raising children on hard-working parents? But budgeting is about trade-offs and voters did not believe Democratic leaders were capable of making them.

Donald Trump has thus far shown himself even more incapable of setting clear priorities. The 119th Congress began amid internal Republican debates over how to advance Trump’s energy and security spending priorities while also extending and expanding upon the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in his first term. Senate Republicans preferred to pass the spending priorities in one reconciliation bill followed by a second reconciliation bill with the tax priorities, while the House preferred to do it all at once. Trump waffled for months, leaving both chambers to go down divergent procedural routes before settling on his demand for “one big beautiful bill.”

Even now, the president continues to give Congressional Republicans conflicting guidance about the composition of his BBB and how he intends to pay for it. He has told House Republicans he supports cutting more than $1 trillion from mandatory spending while telling Senate Republicans he does not support cutting the programs that would be necessary to achieve those savings. The poorly targeted cuts identified by Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency” are on track to save just a few billion dollars, while the deeper cuts to discretionary spending proposed in the administration’s “skinny budget” last week were immediately criticized as unworkable by their own Congressional allies. The few tax loopholes Trump has expressed willingness to close — such as for carried interest and sports stadiums — also wouldn’t raise a significant amount of revenue.

By far, the biggest “offsets” Trump has proposed are his sweeping tariffs, which the president is imposing through executive actions but his advisors are clearly linking to the BBB reconciliation bill. Trump aide Peter Navarro claimed the tariffs enacted on “Liberation Day” would raise $6 trillion over 10 years to help pay for tax cuts. But that faulty calculation does not account for falling revenues as the economy slows down or the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars Trump is planning to spend compensating farmers for destroying their export markets. Still, even critics of the policy agree Trump’s tariffs could raise roughly $2 trillion over 10 years if left in place. 

But the reality is that nobody knows if that’s the plan — least of all Trump. Some Trump advisors, such as Navarro, believe tariffs should be the permanent foundation of our tax system. Most others have suggested the purpose of tariffs is to give him leverage to negotiate better trade deals and foreign policy concessions. If the latter is true, then these tariffs are temporary and won’t even come close to paying for a fraction of the reconciliation bill Republicans are pursuing. This chaos is further evidence that Trump is at least as bad, and likely even worse, at setting priorities as his predecessor was.

TWO PRESIDENTS BOUND BY SHORTSIGHTED TAX PLEDGES

Both Biden and Trump struggled to cover the costs of their BBB in large part because of shortsighted tax pledges they made during the heat of a presidential campaign.

During the 2020 presidential election, Biden pledged not to raise taxes on any household with an annual income under $400,000. That pledge was undoubtedly smart short-term politics: taxes on the ultra-rich are the only ones that poll well. But as a previous report of mine documented, it also made raising revenue extremely difficult by limiting potential tax increases to less than 2% of American taxpayers. 

Even taxing all income not protected by the pledge at revenue-maximizing rates would not be enough to sustainably finance spending at the levels Biden proposed. Yet the tax increases Biden actually proposed were smaller than that, and a Democratic Congress still couldn’t pass them. If Democrats don’t believe they can convince voters that proposed programs are worth personally paying something for, it further suggests those programs aren’t as popular as Democrats wish they were.

Trump now faces a similar challenge of his own making. It would have been difficult enough to find the $4.2 trillion of savings needed over 10 years to offset the cost of making the tax cuts he passed in 2017 permanent. But during the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump made a cacophony of promises to eliminate taxes on tip income, overtime pay, Social Security benefits, auto interest loans, electric generators, and more.

Altogether, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation estimates that these policies could bring the 10-year cost of just the tax provisions in Trump’s BBB to roughly $9 trillion. To put into context how expensive that is: Republicans could completely eliminate Medicaid — the third-largest federal spending program — and still just barely break even.

TWO CONGRESSES USING PROCESS TO PUNT HARD DECISIONS

Knowing that they couldn’t possibly pay for everything their party’s president promised to do in their BBB, Biden’s Democrats and Trump’s Republicans both fell back on legislative shortcuts to mask or avoid difficult tradeoffs.

If enacted permanently, the full suite of BBB spending proposals Congressional Democrats sought to enact would have increased spending by nearly $5 trillion over the 10-year window used for official scorekeeping. But Sen. Joe Manchin — the most resolute deficit hawk in the Senate Democratic caucus — refused to support more than $1.5 trillion of new spending and insisted it all be fully offset. Sen. Schumer convinced Manchin to support a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions that would permit up to $3.5 trillion of new spending so that Congressional committees could begin drafting legislative language. But the two men privately agreed that Manchin’s red line remained unchanged, meaning Democratic leaders merely punted their disagreements rather than resolving them.

Because nobody in either the White House or Congressional leadership was willing to tell activist groups that their priorities had to get cut, they instead tried to circumvent Manchin’s demands using budget gimmicks. The House-passed BBB included tax increases that were permanent and thus effective for the full 10-year window, but spending programs had delayed starts or arbitrary expiration dates. In the official 10-year score, this gimmick made the bill appear roughly deficit-neutral. But in practice, spending programs would be adding to deficits every year they were in place if the law were passed and become increasingly expensive if they were later extended as many Democrats hoped.

Manchin steadfastly refused to engage with these shenanigans and prevented his party from passing a BBB that was deficit-increasing under any measurement. But the “fiscal conscience” of today’s Congressional Republicans is far weaker. While every iteration of BBB legislation Congress considered in 2021 was roughly paid for under traditional scoring methods, no Congressional Republicans are even trying to meet this standard today. 

In February, House Republicans — including the most anti-deficit hardliners — voted to pass a budget resolution that would enable a reconciliation bill to increase deficits by up to $2.8 trillion. Senate Republicans, who balked at the trillions in spending cuts the House required to partially finance GOP tax priorities, passed an even more fiscally irresponsible budget resolution that allowed up to $5.8 trillion in bigger deficits. 

Now Trump’s Republicans are trying to bridge the gap using tactics similar to those that backfired on Biden’s Democrats. First, House leaders — like Manchin did in 2021 — agreed to support the Senate’s budget resolution to keep the process moving forward, even though they would never agree to a BBB consistent with its instructions. Then, Republicans decided they would only seek to enact the new tax cuts Trump proposed during the 2024 election for four years — the same gimmick Democrats tried in 2021 to make their spending programs artificially appear cheaper. 

But Senate Republicans are simultaneously trying to employ a dangerous new gimmick that undermines not just the credibility of the previous one but also the foundation of the Congressional budget process: claiming that extending any policy currently scheduled to expire should be scored as costless. As I and a bipartisan group of budget experts recently warned in a letter to Congress, this approach would enable future Congress to enact a massive policy for one year, then proceed to make it permanent in the second year while pretending it’s completely free. If Republicans rely upon this unprecedented maneuver to pass their BBB, they will be responsible not only for trillions of dollars the legislation itself adds to the debt, but also the tens of trillions they’ve invited future Congresses to pile on.

A PROBLEM OF ATTITUDE MORE THAN MAGNITUDE

Defenders of Biden’s economic management will argue that most of the inflation that materialized during his presidency was due to COVID-related supply chain disruptions and other factors outside Democrats’ control. Indeed, several analyses have concluded that Democrats’ fiscal policies added up to 3 percentage points to inflation in 2021 — that’s a significant contribution, but ultimately, not even a majority of the inflation experienced that year.

The biggest problem for Democrats wasn’t that they got the policy wrong. Rather, it was that they repeatedly demonstrated disinterest in even trying to get it right — a mistake the Trump administration is now replicating to a tee.

Anyone who argued that no economic data justified the need for a $1.9 trillion package in early 2021 was met not with a substantive rebuttal but with a dismissive statement along the lines of “the cost of doing too little is much higher than the cost of doing something big.” It was very reasonable to believe that an overshoot was preferable to an undershoot of equal magnitude, considering that insufficient stimulus likely slowed the recovery following the 2008 financial crisis. But surely a package that was 2% too small would have been preferable to one that was 200% too large.

One might reasonably argue that it was sensible not to adjust policies to prevent significant inflation when decades had passed since that was last an issue in the United States. But when their assumptions proved wrong and inflation did materialize, most Democrats refused to accept that their policies could be responsible and needed to change. The Biden administration first argued that inflation would merely be “transitory.” Then, when that proved untenable, they sought to pass the buck by blaming “corporate greed” for inflation (as if corporations suddenly got greedier in 2021). 

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders did everything in their power to compound their mistakes. The version of BBB they passed through the House would have increased the federal budget deficit by roughly $200 billion in the first year alone. Biden later pursued costly executive actions such as trying to have taxpayers foot the bill for canceling as much student debt as possible, without any regard to the need or cost of such policies, and without doing anything to address the problems that created this debt in the first place. Progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren even went so far as to pressure Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell — who was responsible for curtailing inflation by raising interest rates — to keep interest rates low. 

Donald Trump was elected in large part because of a backlash against this cavalier attitude. Yet as economists and business leaders have been sounding the alarm for months that their tax and trade policies will raise prices on American consumers, the Trump administration has responded almost exactly like Biden and his progressive allies did: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said inflation will be transitory. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson threatened to investigate companies for raising prices. President Trump himself said the economic pain his policies cause are “worth the price that must be paid.” And now, he is pressuring Chairman Powell to cut interest rates. It is no wonder that Republicans’ approval ratings on the economy — which consistently outpaced those of their Democratic rivals throughout Trump’s first term and the 2024 election — now trail them.

WHY THIS TIME IS WORSE

When Biden’s Democrats increased budget deficits, they did so after a decade filled with warnings about the consequences of rising debt that never seemed to manifest even as the debt steadily grew higher and higher. But over the past four years, it’s become clear that those consequences are finally starting to materialize at great expense to the American people. Trump’s Republicans are thus inexcusably seeking to blow up budget deficits at a time when everyone understands that doing so is increasingly costly.

The combination of increased debt to finance borrowing under Biden and higher interest rates on that debt has pushed the federal government’s annual spending on interest to nearly $1 trillion. As a result, the federal government now spends more money paying interest on the national debt than it does on national defense or Medicaid. Measured as a percent of gross domestic product, annual interest costs are higher than at any other time in American history. And if Republicans enact Trump’s BBB, those costs are likely to more than double over the next 30 years.

As was the case under Biden, consumers will also bear the burden of this runaway borrowing. A recent analysis from Yale Budget Lab estimates that a permanent increase in deficits on the scale of what it would take just to make the expiring tax cuts from 2017 permanent would reduce real wealth by up to $36,000 per household over the next 30 years. This is effectively a tax on young Americans that cancels out most of the benefit they would receive from the GOP’s BBB itself.

Importantly, all these estimates are predicated on current economic assumptions that could swiftly change. Bond markets — which determine the interest rate at which the federal government can borrow money — have been increasingly volatile as investors express growing concern about the Trump administration’s economic agenda and its implications for the long-term health of the U.S. economy. If Congress simply adds the cost of extending the expiring tax cuts to the national credit card and interest rates are just one percentage point higher than currently estimated, the Congressional Budget Office projects that debt would rise so high that its model can no longer function. Put another way: passing Trump’s BBB could be the tipping point for not just higher inflation but an unprecedented economic disaster.

Voters made clear in their rejection of Democrats in 2024 that they prioritize controlling the cost of living above all else. If Republicans betray their electoral mandate by continuing to pursue a BBB that’s as bad or worse than the one pursued by their predecessors, they will hand Democrats a perfect chance to seize the political opportunity they’ve squandered. But to achieve a win more durable than a typical midterm backlash, Democrats will have to chart a new course that convinces voters they can be trusted not to repeat the fiscally irresponsible and inflationary policy mistakes that shaped the BBBs of both Biden and Trump.

Trump’s “Liberation Day” Comes at Great Cost to Taxpayers

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

This week, Donald Trump unilaterally enacted a sweeping array of policies to radically reshape our nation’s tariff system on what he called “Liberation Day.” In addition to his protectionist ideological motivations, Trump explicitly stated that one goal of these tariffs was to raise revenue for his costly fiscal agenda. Trump claimed that these tariffs would bring in “trillions and trillions” of dollars, while his Trade advisor Peter Navarro promised they would raise an additional $600 billion annually, or $6 trillion over ten years. But in reality, these tariffs will only raise a fraction of that amount while inflicting large economic costs along the way. 

The sheer scope of Trump’s latest actions is staggering. A 10% tariff will be applied on all goods, with roughly 60 nations facing substantially higher rates, including many of the United States’ biggest trading partners such as the European Union (20%), Japan (24%), and China (54%). The new tariffs will raise the average tariff rate nearly ten-fold, from 2.5% to 22% — a level not seen since 1910. If these tariffs remain in place, the consequences for our economy will be severe: Industries reliant on exports will face much higher costs for products and materials, which they will pass onto consumers through higher prices. Meanwhile, export-reliant industries will face steep retaliatory measures from other countries. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost. Households will be forced to spend more and more on everyday goods from groceries to clothes. Our economy will almost certainly shrink.

The White House’s shoddy revenue methodology completely ignores these economic consequences. To arrive at their $6 trillion estimate, the administration seems to have applied a roughly 20% rate — consistent with the size of the average tariff increase — to the $3.3 trillion in goods imported last year. But in reality, every dollar of tariff revenue collected will come with roughly 50 cents in lost economic value, which partially offsets any gains. This “deadweight loss,” as it is referred to in economic terms, represents the lost value in the economy when tariffs artificially inflate prices past their market value and is primarily borne by consumers via higher prices. As the price of imports rises, consumers will lower or shift their consumption, reducing the volume of total imports, shrinking the broader economy, and ultimately lowering not just tariff revenue but income and payroll receipts as well.

Omitting these dynamics results in a massively inflated estimate. For example, one alternative estimate for all of Trump’s tariff actions — without including their broader economic impacts —  only projects an additional $3.1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. After adding in the impact on the broader economy through job and income losses, this falls to just $2.6 trillion. And this will continue to fall further once other countries begin to implement retaliatory measures that damage the economy. Moreover, neither estimate includes the cost of “compensating” certain constituencies for the economic pain caused by the tariffs. During his first term, Trump offered farmers a $23 billion bailout to offset the harm of his trade policies, something he plans to do again this term with an even bigger price tag — which immediately will cannibalize any revenue the tariffs generate.  

Ultimately, Trump’s trade policy takes money out of working Americans’ pockets while offering them little to no benefit. The revenue generated from these tariffs will not be enough to offset his proposed tax cuts for the rich, let alone the rest of his costly legislative agenda. Rather, these aimless trade measures only serve to impose broad, sweeping trade barriers without any clear strategic goal or consistency, leaving American consumers and businesses to pay the price. 

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

​According to a Congressional Budget Office report released last week, the U.S. Treasury will reach the “X-date” — the point at which it can no longer meet its financial obligations without breaching the debt limit — by August or September 2025.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future:

Read the full email and sign up to receive the Budget Breakdown.

The AI Investment Surge and Manufacturing

President Trump’s tariffs aim to boost capital investment in the United States, but one sector is already making massive domestic investments without the need for tariffs. According to PPI’s analysis, the five big tech companies — Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft — are projected to invest $240 billion in U.S. capital expenditures in 2025, primarily in AI-related structures and equipment. This represents more than double their combined $110 billion U.S. capital spending in 2023 (from PPI’s most recent Investment Heroes report).

This tech investment surge dramatically overshadows domestic investment from major manufacturing industries. By comparison, in 2023, the motor vehicle industry invested just $29 billion in U.S. structures and equipment, while the primary metals industry, including steel and aluminum, invested only $15 billion.

If the U.S. wants to meaningfully increase domestic production, it should leverage our AI leadership rather than attempt a tariff-driven recreation of manufacturing’s past. Trump’s nostalgia for the old manufacturing empire isn’t the future Americans want or need.  

The substantial AI investments being made now point toward a future of flexible digital manufacturing distributed across the country, creating productive capacity that can be easily shifted to meet changing consumer, business, and national security needs, and generating new jobs that will require both digital and physical skills. This vision is impeded, not accelerated, by Trump’s trade war. 

It’s always easier to push on an open door. U.S companies lead in artificial intelligence, and they are showing themselves willing to put their money into this country. Democrats should champion this vision of the future. 

*Note: We developed this projection using our Investment Heroes methodology, which analyzes 10K financial data to estimate U.S. capital spending as a share of global capital expenditures. For this analysis, we applied publicly available 2025 capital spending forecasts and recent earnings reports to our most recently published company estimates of domestic capital spending.

 

IRS Layoffs Threaten to Inject Chaos Into Tax Filing Season and Cost Taxpayers Billions

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

The Trump administration is laying off thousands of employees at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), just as tax season gets underway. These cuts will worsen customer service for millions of hardworking taxpayers as they try to comply with the law. And while the cuts make it harder for Americans to follow the law, it will empower those who break it, allowing tax cheats to continue avoiding paying their fair share.

Many of the 6,700 IRS staffers laid off were recent hires tasked with improving the agency’s poor responsiveness by answering phone calls, processing tax refunds, and assisting with filing. Cutting this staff at the beginning of tax season will reverse recent improvements at a time when households need the most tax help. And with even larger layoffs planned after tax season, the administration will set the stage for even more chaos in future tax seasons.             

The administration claims to be making these cuts in the name of improving government efficiency and reducing waste. However, it is actually more likely to increase budget deficits by undermining efforts to close the “tax gap” — the difference between what taxpayers owe and what the IRS actually collects.

There are two main causes of the tax gap: well-intentioned taxpayers misunderstanding their obligations, and malicious tax cheats actively working to evade their obligations. The Inflation Reduction Act included additional funding for customer service to assist the former and enforcement to crack down on the latter, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office originally estimated would generate $180 billion in additional revenue over the next decade. These expected savings have already declined somewhat due to funding recissions, and laying off newly-hired auditors and customer support staff will go even further, potentially preventing the agency from realizing any savings at all. 

Like any large agency, there is clearly room for the IRS to improve, including by modernizing its outdated technology or simplifying a complex tax filing process. But rather than work to truly make the IRS more efficient to save taxpayers money, Trump’s layoffs instead cost the Treasury billions in foregone revenue and taxpayers millions of hours in compliance headaches. While this is great news for tax cheats seeking to evade their responsibilities, it will hurt the law-abiding American businesses and households who will be left to pick up the tab.  

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

The current U.S. Tariff schedule, which specifies the goods subject to tariffs and the rates they face, already has roughly 11,000 lines. Trump’s proposal to move to a reciprocal tariff system, where every imported good faces a tariff equal to the rate that the same American good would face if exported to its country of origin, would require an exponential expansion to at least 3.1 million lines. 

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News
More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Child Opportunity Accounts Would Expand Opportunity and Financial Capability for American Children

Economic policy debates in recent years have increasingly focused on how to better support children and families. One of the central proposals in these discussions is expanding the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which will be a key feature in the current debate over the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This tax benefit helps working parents by providing them with additional resources to cover everyday costs, which can significantly improve the lives of disadvantaged children by meeting their basic needs.

However, while the CTC provides important short-term assistance to parents, it does less to ensure children can access opportunities for long-term success. Many children from low-income families face barriers to building wealth, such as limited income or job opportunities. Additionally, a lack of financial literacy often makes it even harder for these children to make informed decisions about managing money, impeding their ability to effectively plan for the future or continue building wealth over time. Together, this combination of limited opportunity and financial capability can trap many Americans into lower economic positions, regardless of their talent or potential.

In a recent report, “Building Opportunity and Financial Capability with Child Opportunity Accounts,” PPI proposed to help increase financial resources and financial capability for children from all backgrounds by establishing universal Child Opportunity Accounts (COAs). COAs would automatically be opened at birth with a $700 contribution from the government, with the government making supplemental contributions depending on household income each year on the child’s birthday up to age 16. This progressive approach ensures that children from families struggling to make ends meet get the most help, while still offering modest support to children born in more well-off households. In addition to the contributions from the government, families are also encouraged to participate by contributing to their child’s COA.

Account balances would be automatically invested in diversified portfolios, growing over time to give each child a financial cushion when they enter adulthood. By the time they reach 18, a child from a low-income family could have tens of thousands of dollars in their account to use for wealth-building activities — including education, housing, or starting a business — and guardrails in place to ensure that the money does not go to waste.

 These accounts do not just provide resources for children but also foster the skills they need to grow those resources over time. Financial education resources would be embedded into the accounts and beneficiaries would have to pass an assessment to access their account’s funds before age 25. As children grow, they would learn to manage their own finances and gain more control over their financial future.

To ensure that the burden of rising public debt doesn’t negate the benefit of COAs for young Americans, PPI has offered a comprehensive fiscal blueprint with several policy options to fully offset the program’s cost. One particularly fitting offset included in the blueprint and further detailed in another recent PPI report would be reforming the taxation of inheritances. Taxing the birthrights of the richest 1% to give every child an equal starting point would help create a more inclusive society where everyone, regardless of their background, has access to the resources and opportunities necessary for success. But PPI’s blueprint also offers several dozen potential alternatives if this offset proves politically challenging for one reason or another.

America’s economic future depends on its ability to foster talent, not just in its wealthiest citizens, but across the socioeconomic spectrum. Providing for a child’s basic needs, while important, does little to set them up for success in adulthood. Investing in Child Opportunity Accounts would ensure that every child, regardless of background, has the financial foundation and knowledge they need to pursue their full potential. This isn’t just an investment in individual families, but in our country’s future prosperity.

Republicans Reckon with the Costs of Their Tax Cuts

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

Congressional Republicans last week took a major step in advancing their legislative priorities last week when the House Budget Committee passed a budget resolution that enables them to make deep reductions in both taxes and spending within one filibuster-proof reconciliation bill. But despite winning Trump’s endorsement over a competing Senate alternative, division has already emerged over the severity of the resolution’s spending cuts. This debate has revealed an uncomfortable truth for Republicans: that tax cuts come with a cost, whether or not they are transparent about those costs.

The House budget resolution originally specified $1.5 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending that the relevant Congressional committees would be required to put in a subsequent reconciliation bill. But to win support from right-wing hardliners in their caucus, House Republican leadership added an amendment to their resolution that set a $2 trillion target for mandatory spending cuts without specifying from where the additional cuts would come. In addition, if Republicans fail to reach this new target, the $4.5 trillion allowance they gave the Ways and Means Committee to pass deficit-financed tax cuts would now be reduced by the same amount by which they missed the new target. In other words, if Republicans want to proceed with their plans to pass a massive tax cut, they’ll need to at least partially pay for it through additional spending cuts.

Many Republicans are simply not comfortable with what it takes to cut $2 trillion from mandatory spending. President Trump has removed many of the biggest mandatory spending programs — including Medicare, Social Security, and veterans’ benefits — from consideration, leaving less than one third of all mandatory spending available for Republicans to target. As a result, nearly all the $1.5 trillion in cuts that the budget resolution identifies are likely to come from vital safety net programs that benefit millions of Americans. Roughly 60% of the cuts specified in the budget resolution could come from Medicaid, a popular program that offers health insurance to roughly a fifth of the nation. Another 22% could come from federal nutrition programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food assistance to 42 million low-income Americans.

And even these cuts — which are $500 billion short of the target — have already run into political difficulties. Several “moderate” Republicans whose districts rely heavily on Medicaid have so far declined to support the resolution out of concerns that the cuts would hit their constituents. With the GOP’s slim House majority, even a few defections could prove fatal for the budget resolution’s chances.

But while they squabble over these spending cuts, neither moderate nor right-wing Republicans are truly willing to confront the deeper tradeoffs needed to reconcile their bill with fiscal realities. Although the resolution now targets $2 trillion in spending cuts, it still adds a whopping $4.8 trillion in new obligations — split between $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $300 billion in new spending. Whether Republicans are willing to admit it, America will eventually have to pay for the costs of these budget-busting proposals in their entirety.

Enacting huge deficit-financed tax cuts means there is simply less revenue available to sustain the same level of government spending. To correct this deficit, future Americans will be forced to choose between raising their taxes or making even deeper cuts to critical programs. If they opted against raising taxes, the resulting cuts would go far beyond the cuts currently being debated. For example, the current budget resolution contains up to $880 billion in potential Medicaid cuts, which would be a roughly 11% decrease in spending over ten years compared to baseline funding. But to make up for the full cost of what their budget resolution would add to the deficit, Republicans would need to cut Medicaid by 45% instead — nearly half the program’s spending.

That Republicans don’t specify today what Americans will have to forego to pay for tax cuts doesn’t make those trade-offs any less real. Ultimately, the fight about offsets playing out between different factions of the GOP in Congress is not about how much spending must be cut to make their priorities work with fiscal reality. Rather, it’s simply a fight over how much of those cuts to be honest about.

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

Programs including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP that are able to distribute funding without being subject to the annual appropriations process are considered “mandatory spending.” In 2024, mandatory spending totaled roughly $4.1 trillion, or about 60% of all federal spending.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News
More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future