Sam Thorpe

With Rs using the ICA to unilaterally break approps deals, the only path forward for bipartisan approps is ensuring any new dollars are ineligible for an ICA §1012 rescission.

If Rs say no and demand the ability to unilaterally break deals after the fact, we’ll be in shutdown land — because of Rs.

What the current administration understands -- and what Democratic establishment and many of my liberal fellow-travelers have ignored for far too long -- is that there are no *fundamental* rules in the game of politics.

The rules are created by humans, and they are enforced by humans. Or not.

2/

This is a season of trench warfare and we have to continue to fight because a law passed is NOT the end and I think we all know this. There will be implementation fight opportunities, there will be constant organizing and pushback. Nothing is permanent. Onwards.

Kudos to the whole @taxwarroom.bsky.social team - I'm grateful to have been a part of this fight. We're not going to stop until every American sees what Trump and congressional Republicans have done to health care and food assistance for working-class people around this country.

I'm going to be logging off through the weekend to recover after a lot of very long days. All I can hope is that our constant work to make Americans aware of this awful, harmful bill has helped raise its profile, forced some of the worst provisions out, and brings us closer to a landslide in 2026.

Well, the bill passed. It will force 17 million Americans off their insurance, put millions more at risk of not being able to put food on the table, and supercharge ICE's ability to deport immigrants and threaten citizens, all while cutting taxes on the richest Americans. A sad day for our country.

Yeah, this is the thing, it’s hard to understate how much this influx of resources for immigrant detention is going to change the ways that ICE does business. Like really fundamentally change what capacity the agency has.

This is a key point. If you are server making $65k after tips, you are getting a $2,500 tax break, but your insurance costs go up by $3,000. You just lost $500.

Yep, that's exactly right. The Yale Budget Lab ran this analysis a few weeks ago and found that when you include tariffs as well, the full package would lower the incomes of all but the richest 20% of Americans, but give a tax cut of more than $10,000 to the top 10%. Completely insane stuff.

Note that the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which created these estimates, uses fairly right-leaning assumptions about the effects of tax cuts on growth. If even Wharton is finding these numbers, you can safely expect that this bill will be very bad for America.

Senate Reconciliation Bill: Budget, Economic, and Distributional Effects — Penn Wharton Budget Model We estimate the Senate-passed reconciliation bill increases primary deficits by $3.1 trillion over 10 years. The dynamic cost, including changes to the economy, is larger at $3.5 trillion. GDP falls b...

Another demonstration of just how economically incoherent this Republican budget bill is: new estimates show that by 2033, it would reduce incomes for the bottom 60% (!!!) of the country.

The Republican budget bill that just passed the senate would cut health care and food assistance for working-class Americans to give tax cuts to the rich. More than anything else, that is the point of this bill. If House Republicans cave and pass it, that will be their legacy.

If this thing becomes law, it will be essential for Democrats to not simply run against it. They must demonstrate to voters that they also understand that the pre-Trump status quo was unacceptable and articulate an affirmative vision of how we can do better if voters return them to office.

Never have so many been so grievously hurt in the service of so few.

If you make more than $500,000 a year under this plan, you'll get a five-figure tax cut. If you're a working-class American, you'll lose out. It's pretty insane stuff, which is why Republicans are trying to jam it through before anyone has the chance to understand what they're passing.

Combined Distributional Effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and of Tariffs

Yep, that's exactly right. (And this doesn't come from me - it's an analysis by the nonpartisan Yale Budget Lab that you can check out here: budgetlab.yale.edu/research/com...)

This bill sacrifices America's future at the altar of tax cuts for billionaires and funding for a massive deportation machine. If you have Republican or moderate Dem representatives, NOW is the time to call (or even better, show up at their district office in person) and demand they vote NO.

Final vote. 50-50. VP breaks the tie.

One single GOP Senator could have stopped this abomination. Saved millions of parents from watching their child go hungry. Saved the lives destroyed when Medicaid disappears.

They will all live forever with the horror of this bill.

The Senate just passed their version of the "Big, Beautiful Bill." If it passes the House, it will take health care and food away from millions of Americans, gut green energy production, and increase ICE deportation funding by more than 250%. Meanwhile, millionaires would get a tax cut of >$60,000.

Per draft text, these are the big changes that Senate Rs made to secure Murkowski's vote. (Most of these are good changes, but they're not nearly sufficient to offset all of the terrible things this plan will do to cut health care, food assistance, and green energy production in America.)

After a long night of frantic negotiations, Senate Rs appear to have settled on a compromise on SNAP in order to buy Sen. Murkowski's vote: delay any cuts for states with the HIGHEST error rates, including Alaska. This will *incentivize,* rather than end, waste, fraud, and abuse.

intensely relatable

When the Democrats come back into power, we need an agenda and urgency to meet the moment. Fascists are causing huge harm on many fronts very quickly. Rebuilding is harder but it can't be slower. We will have a narrow window to both fix democracy and prove that democracy can deliver. No half-assing.

For Once, Economists Agree: Extending Section 199A Is A Bad Idea The rule has proven to be expensive, regressive, complicated, ineffective in promoting investment, and unfair to wage earners.

That provision comes on top of the incredibly destructive extension of the Section 199A deduction, which I wrote about for Brookings here - but unlike Section 199A, it doesn't even pretend to be for small businesses. $17 billion just for some of the wealthiest investors in America.

Silicon Valley's Favorite Tax Break Gets Stronger Under GOP's Proposed Spending Bill Silicon Valley’s favorite tax break may be getting an upgrade.

For your team to add to the list - a $17 billion tax break for wealthy venture capitalists hidden in the fine print! www.bloomberg.com/news/article...

We've got new distributional data on the Senate's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" from @natasharsarin.bsky.social and team at @budgetlab.bsky.social.

The results are **stark.**

Top 0.1% _GAINS_ $97,000, or 1% of household resources.
Bottom 20% _LOSES_ $600, or 3% of household resources.

Ok, so Republicans just introduced a 900 page bill none of them have read. But my team is going through it line by line and on this 🧵you can see the hidden provisions we found. Will update all day.

1/ NEW Medicaid cuts, so now 17 million - instead of 16M - lose health care.

Silicon Valley's Favorite Tax Break Gets Stronger Under GOP's Proposed Spending Bill Silicon Valley’s favorite tax break may be getting an upgrade.

Thread:

Article highlighting a tax break for the wealthy shoved into the tax bill the Senate is considering: turbo-charging a loophole-ridden tax break for venture capitalists and other well-off investors.
www.bloomberg.com/news/article... (Paywall via @bloomberglaw.com @bloombergtax.com)

Trump’s Big Bill Would Be More Regressive Than Any Major Law in Decades Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, released Thursday, offer a detailed view into the effects on income groups.

Just a reminder of the main effects of the big GOP bill ...

www.nytimes.com/interactive/...

You don’t need much imagination to envision how Dems could use this precedent to pass temporarily, then extend permanently, policies that had been off the table (public option, M4A, pick your favorite)

More modestly: Temporarily then permanently undo the unprecedented safety net cuts in this bill