It's Rand Paul and Elon Musk vs. Donald Trump Over the 'Big Beautiful Bill'

The intra-Republican fight over the future of a major tax and borrowing bill intensified on Tuesday, as President Donald Trump lashed out and former White House favorite Elon Musk offered a sharp criticism of the proposal.
The whole thing played out, as today's political dramas so often do, in a series of posts on social media.
Trump slammed Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) in a Tuesday morning post on Truth Social that accused the senator of having "very little understanding" of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), which the House passed last week. The bill would extend the 2017 personal income tax cuts and includes a number of new tax and spending provisions.
Trump wrote that the bill is a big "WINNER." He may see it that way, but every independent assessment of the package says it will add at least $3 trillion to the long-term deficit (and potentially as much as $5 trillion). That means the bill is doing the opposite of what Trump vowed to do in March during his speech to Congress, when he promised to balance the budget.
The prospect of that increased borrowing is at the root of Paul's objections. In a post on X, Paul seemingly responded to Trump's criticism by showing that he understands exactly what the BBB would do.
"The math doesn't add up," Paul wrote. "I'm not supporting a bill that increases the debt by $5 [trillion]. I refuse to support maintaining Biden spending levels."
Paul reiterated his view on the bill: He wants to extend the 2017 tax cuts, but in such a way that does not add to the deficit. In his posts on Tuesday, Paul added that "at least 4 of us in the Senate feel this way." Four GOP votes against the bill would be enough to block its passage through the Senate.
Musk, who officially departed from his role in the White House last week, jumped into the debate to criticize the bill. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.), who shepherded the BBB through the House last week, told The Hill that Musk was "terribly wrong" to criticize the bill. Other conservatives suggested that Musk was motivated more by the loss of tax credits that benefit Tesla than by genuine concern about the deficit.
Musk's motivations might not be pure, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. In a follow-up post on X, he wrote that "Congress is making America bankrupt." No lies detected there—and the BBB will make that situation worse.
Musk and Paul are at least living in reality. The White House, meanwhile, has resorted to trying to discredit the independent entities that have scored the bill. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of engaging in partisan politics by saying the BBB would add to the deficit—echoing a criticism that Johnson made last week.
That's a rather absurd allegation, considering the current director of the CBO is Phillip Swagel, a Republican who previously worked in the Bush administration and at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
Math is not a conspiracy against Trump. The president and his supporters are free to disagree with the likes of Musk and Paul, but they should stop lying about the budgetary impact of the BBB and should admit that they support higher levels of borrowing. Then we could have an intellectually serious debate over the bill, instead of whatever this is.
In the meantime, give credit to Musk and Paul for holding the line on fiscal responsibility. Few of their fellow Republicans are willing to do that these days.
The post It's Rand Paul and Elon Musk vs. Donald Trump Over the 'Big Beautiful Bill' appeared first on Reason.com.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Bloomberg

35 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

Senate Readies Tax Bill for Vote With Holdouts Threatening Delay

President Donald Trump's tax-and-spending agenda is nearing a climatic vote in the Senate this week in the wake of air strikes on Iran, which risk embroiling the US in a prolonged Middle East conflict. Trump's $4.2 trillion tax-cut package, partially offset by social safety net reductions, does not yet have the support it needs to pass the Senate. Fiscal hawks seeking to lower the bill's total price tag are at odds with Republicans worried about cuts to Medicaid health coverage for their constituents and phase-outs to green energy incentives that support jobs in their states.

Indianapolis Star

35 minutes ago

• Indianapolis Star

Why won't Republicans call on Joe Hogsett to resign?

It is shocking that only one out of six Republicans on the Indianapolis City-County Council have called on Mayor Joe Hogsett to resign following sexual harassment allegations that have rocked his office in recent months. Many constituents of Republican councilors are frustrated that their caucus has been more passive than council Democrats, three of whom are on record saying Hogsett should resign. It is hard to trust your leaders when they stay silent about a moral and ethical issue, especially involving one of their political enemies. If anyone should have the courage to speak up, it should be Republicans. Unlike their Democratic colleagues, Republicans don't have to worry about Hogsett continuing to be a power broker in their party for several years due to their trouble building an independent political machine. '[Calling on Hogsett to resign] could cause personal financial hardship to people,' Democratic Councilor Jesse Brown, the first to call on Hogsett to resign, told me. '[And he] is in good with all the biggest donors and he has a ton of money in the bank and so … he absolutely could you know levy those connections or that money to sink people's political careers.' Briggs: Hogsett's texts to women show Indianapolis mayor embodied toxic culture When I asked Republican Minority Leader Michael-Paul Hart why he hasn't called on Hogsett to resign, he said he didn't want to get political. He has focused his criticism on the investigation into Hogsett, rather than Hogsett himself. After all, many are starting to think the investigation was just a PR stunt aimed at clearing him of legal liability. 'I try to be as apolitical as possible because I think local government is just non-political … we're always talking about roads, water, trash, public safety,' Hart said. 'At the end of the day, we've got to focus on what we can control and what is symbolic.' Gov. Mike Braun expressed a similar sentiment when asked by WIBC-FM (93.1) host Nigel Laskowski about the scandal. 'What I'm more concerned about would be the potholes per linear mile,' Braun said June 18. I don't think fixing potholes, criticizing a political process and taking a moral stance against political leaders engaging in ethical violations should be mutually exclusive. However, Hogsett still controls the city budget and Council President Vop Osili appears to be positioning himself to succeed Hogsett. Either person could retaliate against Republicans who chose to make trouble and divert city funds away from their districts. Opinion: I was dragged out by sheriff's deputies. Indiana Democrats stayed silent. 'I try to remind folks all the time there's … 240,000 people that the six of us (Republicans) represent and I would certainly not want them to be disenfranchised,' Hart told me when I asked if he thought Hogsett would retaliate against Republicans. 'But I would hope that the mayor wouldn't punish the people of our districts for something of that nature.' Several councilors and their employers are also financially dependent on contracts with the city-county government, which Hogsett could push to terminate if councilors call on him to resign. Hart, for example, is employed as a director by SHI International, which has a six million dollar contract through 2027 with Indianapolis. The risk of retaliation, however, did not stop both Democratic and Republican leaders from calling on former Attorney General Curtis Hill to resign after he faced allegations of groping, and did not stop both Democratic and Republican leaders from condemning former Indiana Senate Minority Leader Greg Taylor after he faced allegations of sexual harassment. Taking the personal risk to call for greater ethical standards for political leaders may not fix the roads, but it will do something just as important. It will rebuild public trust in local leaders by providing some concrete evidence that they subscribe to a set of moral standards, and that they want our political system to be just and fair for both their constituents and employees.

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast

Most retirees rely on their Social Security income, to some varied degree, to make ends meet. The 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report is calling for an even steeper reduction to retired-worker and survivor benefits come 2033 than was forecast last year. Ongoing demographic shifts are (mostly) responsible for Social Security's financial woes. However, the longer Congress waits to implement reforms, the costlier it'll be on working Americans. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security represents more than just a monthly check for most retirees. To many, it's a financial lifeline that surveys and studies have shown they'd struggle to make do without. For 23 consecutive years, national pollster Gallup surveyed retirees to determine how important their Social Security income was to covering their expenses. Every year, no fewer than 80% of respondents noted it was necessary, in some capacity, to cover their costs. A separate analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Social Security pulled 22 million people above the federal poverty line in 2023, including 16.3 million adults aged 65 and above. If the Social Security program didn't exist, the poverty rate for this group would be nearly four times higher (37.3%, estimated) than it was in 2023 (10.1%). For lawmakers, ensuring the financial health of Social Security should be of paramount importance. But based on the latest Social Security Board of Trustees Report, America's leading retirement program is on anything but stable ground. In January 1940, the Social Security program doled out its very first retired-worker benefit. Since then, the Social Security Board of Trustees has published an annual report intricately detailing how the program generates income, as well as where every dollar in outlays ends up. But what tends to garner even more attention is the Trustees' forecasts of what's to come for Social Security. Specifically, the short- (10-year) and long-term (75-year) projections, which are regularly updated to reflect fiscal policy changes, monetary policy shifts, and an assortment of demographic adjustments. Last week, the 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report was released -- and it contained some rather chilling news for current and future retirees. To begin with, the program's long-term unfunded obligation continues to widen. Every annual report since 1985 has pointed to a 75-year funding deficit between projected income to be collected and forecast outlays, which includes annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). In present-day dollars, discounted to Jan. 1, 2025, this 75-year deficit stood at a staggering $25.1 trillion. However, the more worrisome news is the short-term forecast for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund (OASI). This is the fund responsible for doling out monthly benefits to retired workers and survivors of deceased beneficiaries. Beginning in 2021, the OASI began outlaying more in benefits than was being collected in income. This outflow from the OASI's asset reserves is expected to grow with each passing year. By 2033, the OASI's asset reserves are projected to be completely exhausted. Before going any further, let's make clear that the OASI doesn't need a penny in asset reserves to remain solvent and continue to pay benefits to eligible recipients. With the lion's share of Social Security income collected from the 12.4% payroll tax on wages and salary, there will always be income to disburse to qualified beneficiaries. But if the OASI's asset reserves are depleted in eight years, as the latest Trustees Report predicts, the current payout schedule, inclusive of COLAs, won't be sustainable. The Trustees are forecasting a 23% cut to payouts may be necessary for retired workers and survivor beneficiaries by 2033 -- this is up from an estimated 21% cut outlined in the 2024 Trustees Report -- to sustain monthly benefits without the need for any further reductions through 2099. With Social Security providing a financial foundation to retirees for more than eight decades, the obvious question for current and future retirees is simple: How did Social Security get into this mess? What can be said with certainty is that "congressional theft" and "undocumented migrants receiving traditional Social Security benefits," which are two common myths/scapegoats mentioned by some people online, are the wrong answers. Rather, Social Security's worsening financial outlook is a function of numerous ongoing demographic shifts, as well as inaction on Capitol Hill. Some of these shifts are well-documented and understood by the public. For example, baby boomers reaching retirement age and leaving the workforce in larger numbers are weighing down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Likewise, people are living longer today than they were when Social Security initially began paying retired-worker benefits in 1940. To be somewhat blunt, the program wasn't designed to dish out payments to retirees for two or more decades, as is somewhat commonplace today. But a number of these demographic shifts aren't nearly as visible -- nevertheless, they're playing a key role in weakening the program. For starters, the U.S. fertility rate (i.e., hypothetical lifetime births per woman) hit an all-time low in 2023. A laundry list of factors, ranging from people waiting longer to get married and have children, to concerns about the health of the U.S. economy, have reduced the number of children being born and will, eventually, weigh down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Rising income inequality is another issue for Social Security. Based on data from the Social Security Administration, approximately 90% of all earned income (wages and salary, but not investment income) was subject to the 12.4% payroll tax in 1983. By 2023, only 83% of earned income was subject to this program-funding tax. In simple terms, the wages and salaries for high earners have been increasing at a faster pace than the National Average Wage Index, which determines the upper range of earned income exposed to the payroll tax. In short, more earned income is escaping the payroll tax as time passes. Insufficient net migration into the U.S. has been problematic, too. Social Security relies on younger people migrating to the U.S. and contributing to the program for decades via the payroll tax before earning a retirement benefit for themselves one day. Since 1997, the net migration rate into the U.S. has dropped off dramatically. The final culprit is the aforementioned lack of action by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Although plenty of bills have been proposed, the cavernous ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill as to how best to strengthen Social Security has led to an ongoing stalemate. If there's a silver lining here, it's that lawmakers do have a knack for coming to Social Security's rescue in the 11th hour. But the longer Congress waits to tackle this issue, the costlier it's going to be on working Americans to fix. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast was originally published by The Motley Fool 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