Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Is a Good Idea. But It Won't Deliver 'Big, Beautiful' Economic Growth.
President Donald Trump and many of his allies in Congress are making grand claims about the economic growth they say will result from the recently proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill." Trump has accused critics of not understanding the budget proposal, "especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming." A closer examination of the economic realities involved reveals that these claims are dramatically overstated.
I have no objections on principles to extending the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Allowing these cuts to expire would deliver some measure of pain to the economy and add to our troubles. Tax hikes at a time when individuals and businesses are expecting tax stability would undoubtedly depress investment, employment, and overall economic confidence. Americans are already getting a huge tax hike because of Trump's tariffs.
However, making a sound case for maintaining the current tax structure is fundamentally different from making the case that it will bring about substantial new growth. It's largely a defensive move. Realistically, the economic boost will be modest at best.
In fact, the administration and congressional supporters of this bill admit that much without realizing it. On the Senate side, lawmakers argue that the fiscal cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts should be measured against today's tax code rather than against the code to which we would revert if the cuts automatically expire. They argue that assuming the cuts will be extended reflects the common expectation among taxpayers and markets.
But if markets already expect extensions, then making the tax cuts permanent cannot generate significant additional economic growth. The growth that can be achieved by these tax cuts has largely been realized. Merely continuing with lower rates doesn't unleash many new incentives or productivity.
In addition, the budget legislation does lots more than extend the 2017 tax cuts. In fact, about 25 percent of the bill consists of different tax breaks on tips or overtime, and spending hikes for the military and various special interests. These are not pro-growth policies—in addition to being expensive.
The Tax Foundation estimates that the bill would raise economic output by approximately 0.8 percent in the long run. The Economic Policy Innovation Center analysis pegs the economic gain at around 0.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Both are far from the revolutionary 3 percent figures that Trump's most ardent fanboys are claiming.
Moreover, most economic models don't adequately consider the negative consequences of ballooning federal debt on long-term growth. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will add a further $2.4 trillion to the debt. High levels of debt put upward pressure on interest rates, crowding out private investment and dampening long-term growth prospects. Historically, too much debt correlates with diminished economic performance.
Whatever blip in the growth rate we will see thanks to the tax bill, it won't compensate for the damage done by the Trump administration's ongoing trade wars. Tariffs disrupt supplies, increase costs for American businesses and consumers, and create considerable economic uncertainty. Even if we generously assume that tax cuts will deliver an additional 0.5 percent to 0.8 percent in annual GDP growth, the drag from tariffs easily surpasses this modest benefit.
The contradiction couldn't be clearer. Proponents of the bill and the president himself trumpet its growth-enhancing powers while simultaneously piling up debt and enacting trade policies that are both guaranteed to undermine economic dynamism.
And yes, in addition to the expected opposition from Democrats, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and a few other voices from the right side of the aisle have been highlighting the bill's inadequacies, to the great displeasure of the president.
Among other things, they point to its subsidies and other distorting economic interventions and accurately observe that the economic benefits being touted are inflated and misleading. Paul understands that a true pro-growth agenda would extend the tax provisions while limiting the debt impact by cutting wasteful spending, closing tax loopholes, and not loading the bill with lots of special-interest giveaways.
The legislation is now in the hands of the Senate. If senators are interested in genuine and productive tax reform, they will scrap the new provisions and do 10-year extensions of pro-growth policies that are currently temporary in the legislation as passed by the House (such as 100 percent bonus depreciation and research-and-development expensing)—and they'd still be left with room to lower the cost. If they keep the spending offset included in the House bill and Medicaid reform, this would become both pro-growth and fiscally responsible legislation.
Instead of indulging in the dangerous fantasy that any tax cuts will produce enormous growth, Congress needs to do the work and revise the bill so that it does produce growth and offsets the debt accumulation.
COPYRIGHT 2025
The post Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Is a Good Idea. But It Won't Deliver 'Big, Beautiful' Economic Growth. appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New York Civil Liberties Union slams DOJ over ICE lawsuit
MANHATTAN (PIX11) — The New York Civil Liberties Union is slamming the U.S. Department of Justice for its lawsuit against New York's Protect Our Courts Act. 'The Trump administration's attack on the Protect Our Courts Act is a blatant assault on justice that would turn New York's courthouses into traps,' Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. 'Our legal system cannot function when people are too scared to step through courthouse doors. Without the Protect Our Courts Act, immigrant New Yorkers may not defend themselves against charges, avoid seeking protective orders, miss custody hearings, and stop fighting unlawful wage theft or eviction. No one is better off when justice is denied.' More Local News New York State Assemblywoman Michaelle Solages, who sponsored the Protect Our Courts Act, told PIX 11 News 'This lawsuit is a shameful display of federal overreach and political cruelty. They're using taxpayer dollars to uphold a law that upholds due process and the human rights of people and I think its really despicable.' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said, 'Lawless sanctuary city policies are the root cause of the violence that Americans have seen in California, and New York State is similarly employing sanctuary city policies to prevent illegal aliens from apprehension.' Bondi added, 'This latest lawsuit in a series of sanctuary city litigation underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Israel Disregards Trump With Major Attack on Iran Nuclear Sites
By and Natalia Drozdiak Save President Donald Trump had repeatedly urged Israel not to strike Iran's nuclear sites. It didn't work.


Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Israeli strikes on Iran lead to new test of Trump's ability to deliver on ‘America first' agenda
Advertisement 'Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense,' Rubio said in a statement. 'President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up As Israel stepped up planning for strikes in recent weeks, however, Iran, had signaled that the United States would be held responsible in the event of an Israeli attack. The warning was issued by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi even as he engaged in talks with Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff over Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program. On Thursday, just hours before the strikes, Trump made the case that there was still time for diplomacy — but it was running out. The White House had even planned to dispatch Witkoff to Oman on Sunday for the next round of talks with Araghchi. It wasn't immediately clear how the strikes would affect plans for those discussions. Advertisement Trump is set to meet with his National Security Council in the Situation Room on Friday to discuss the tricky path ahead. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., offered rare words of Democratic praise for the Trump administration after the attack 'for prioritizing diplomacy' and 'refraining from participating in tonight's actions.' But he also expressed deep concern about what the Israeli strikes could mean for U.S. personnel in the region. Iranian officials made clear that they intended to retaliate with decisive action after the Israeli strikes targeted Iran's main enrichment facility in Natanz and the country's ballistic missile program, as well as top nuclear scientists and officials. 'I cannot understand why Israel would launch a preemptive strike at this juncture, knowing high level diplomatic discussions between the United States and Iran are scheduled for this weekend,' Kaine said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the U.S. Senate 'stands ready to work with President Trump and with our allies in Israel to restore peace in the region and, first and foremost, to defend the American people from Iranian aggression, especially our troops and civilians serving overseas.' Trump in the hours before the attack still appeared hopeful that there would be more time for diplomacy. The president, in an exchange with reporters, again urged Iran to negotiate a deal. He warned that a 'massive conflict' could occur in the Middle East without it. He later took to social media to emphasize that his 'entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran.' Advertisement As long as there was a chance for an agreement, Trump said of Israel, 'I don't want them going in because I think it would blow it.' But it was clear to the administration that Israel was edging toward taking military action against Iran. The State Department on Wednesday directed a voluntary evacuation of nonessential personnel and their families from some U.S. diplomatic outposts in the Middle East. 'I don't want to be the one that didn't give any warning, and missiles are flying into their buildings. It's possible. So I had to do it,' Trump explained. Before Israel launched the strikes, some of Trump's strongest supporters were raising concerns about what another expansive conflict in the Mideast could mean for the Republican president who ran on a promise to quickly end the brutal wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Trump has struggled to find an endgame to either of those conflicts and to make good on two of his biggest foreign policy campaign promises. And after criticizing President Joe Biden during last year's campaign for preventing Israel from carrying out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Trump found himself making the case to the Israelis to give diplomacy a chance. The push by the Trump administration to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear program came after the U.S. and other world powers in 2015 reached a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. But Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever.' The way forward is even more clouded now. Advertisement 'No issue currently divides the right as much as foreign policy,' Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA and an ally of the Trump White House, posted on X Thursday. 'I'm very concerned based on (everything) I've seen in the grassroots the last few months that this will cause a massive schism in MAGA and potentially disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency.' Jack Posobiec, another prominent Trump supporter, warned a 'direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' 'Trump smartly ran against starting new wars, this is what the swing states voted for — the midterms are not far and Congress' majority is already razor-thin,' Posobiec added in a posting on X. Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, said the job ahead for Trump and his team is to protect U.S. forces who are highly vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. 'Israel's strike on Iran must not become the United States' war,' Kelanic said. 'The U.S. public overwhelmingly opposes another military engagement in the Middle East for good reason — an open-ended military campaign in Iran would risk repeating the catastrophic mistakes of the 2003 war in Iraq, which inadvertently strengthened Tehran's influence there.' ___ AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro contributed reporting.