The House Bill is Neither Big Nor Beautiful

Millions of Americans recently woke to news that the House of Representatives narrowly (215-214) passed a tax and spending package known as The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), moving it one step closer to becoming law.

最近，数百万美国人醒来后得知众议院以微弱优势（215-214）通过了一项名为《单一、大、美丽法案》（OBBBA）的税收和支出方案，使其距离成为法律又近​​了一步。

While democrats remain unanimously opposed, most House republicans are enthusiastic about the bill.

尽管民主党人仍然一致反对，但大多数众议院共和党人对该法案充满热情。

1 Sure, members of the SALT Caucus didn’t get as much tax relief as they wanted, and fiscal hawks in the House Freedom Caucus would have liked even deeper spending cuts, but republicans are well on their way to passing a bill that makes good on many of President Trump’s campaign promises.

1 当然，SALT 核心小组成员没有得到他们想要的那么多税收减免，众议院自由核心小组中的财政鹰派人士希望进一步削减开支，但共和党人正在顺利通过一项法案，兑现特朗普总统的许多竞选承诺。

Since they’re doing this through a process known as budget reconciliation , the bill can pass with simple majorities in both chambers.

由于他们是通过预算协调程序来做到这一点，因此该法案可以在参众两院以简单多数通过。

Republicans don’t need—and won’t get—a single vote from democrats, but they’ll have to stick together with minimal defections in order get the bill through the House and the Senate.

共和党人不需要也不会得到民主党人的一票，但他们必须团结一致，尽量减少叛逃，才能使该法案在众议院和参议院获得通过。

It looks like that won’t happen by the aspirational July 4 deadline sought by President Trump, but it will almost certainly happen sometime this year.

在特朗普总统所要求的 7 月 4 日最后期限之前，这似乎不会发生，但几乎肯定会在今年的某个时候发生。

As I teach graduate students in my Public Budgeting and Finance course, it’s all about conflict and resolution.

当我在公共预算和金融课程中教授研究生时，一切都是关于冲突和解决。

The Senate has no intention of rubber stamping the House version of the OBBBA.

参议院无意批准众议院版本的 OBBBA。

It plans to draft its own version, but it will need to resolve conflicts within its own ranks in order to pick up the 51 votes it needs.

它计划起草自己的版本，但需要解决自己内部的冲突，才能获得所需的 51 票。

Senators Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) have already expressed strong opposition to the House bill, which they say doesn’t do enough to cut spending.

参议员罗恩·约翰逊（威斯康星州共和党）、里克·斯科特（佛罗里达州共和党）和迈克·李（犹他州共和党）已经对众议院法案表示强烈反对，他们认为该法案对削减支出的作用不够。

They’re complaining about the bill’s price tag and demanding even deeper cuts to programs like Medicaid.

他们抱怨该法案的价格标签，并要求进一步削减医疗补助等项目。

Meanwhile, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is pushing back against some of the draconian cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, warning that they will end up hurting millions of Trump’s own voters while handing democrats a fillet knife to sever them in the midterms.

与此同时，密苏里州参议员乔什·霍利（密苏里州共和党人）正在反对对医疗补助和 SNAP 的一些严厉削减，并警告说，这些削减最终将伤害数百万特朗普自己的选民，同时向民主党人递上一把鱼片刀，在中期选举中将他们割裂开来。

Others are worried about cuts to renewable energy and how those cuts will impact investment and employment in their state.

其他人担心可再生能源的削减以及这些削减将如何影响他们所在州的投资和就业。

If the senate strays too far from the House version of the bill, new conflicts will erupt and the process will drag into the summer, maybe even the fall.

如果参议院与众议院版本的法案偏离太远，就会爆发新的冲突，整个过程将拖到夏季，甚至秋季。

At the end of the day, republicans will coalesce around a shared package, and the president will sign into law a bill that is neither beautiful nor all that big.

最终，共和党人将围绕一个共同的方案联合起来，而总统将签署一项既不漂亮也不那么大的法案成为法律。

You can argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but gratuitously stripping 13.7 million people of health insurance and taking food assistance away from millions of parents struggling to feed their children is pretty ugly stuff.

你可以说情人眼里出西施，但无缘无故地剥夺 1370 万人的医疗保险，并剥夺数百万艰难养活孩子的父母的粮食援助，这真是丑陋的事情。

And doing it to “ pay for ” tax cuts that will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest is both shameful and immoral.

这样做是为了“支付”减税的费用，而减税将使最富有的人受益，这既可耻又不道德。

As the economist and former State Senator Reynold Nesiba put it, this isn’t a beautiful bill.

正如经济学家、前州参议员雷诺·内西巴（Reynold Nesiba）所说，这不是一项漂亮的法案。

It’s an egregious transfer of wealth from the least among us to those who already enjoy substantial economic security.

这是一种令人震惊的财富从我们中最底层的人向那些已经享有实质性经济保障的人的转移。

Republicans like to emphasize the fact that their tax cuts will benefit everyone , not just those at the top.

共和党人喜欢强调这样一个事实，即他们的减税政策将使所有人受益，而不仅仅是顶层人士。

But when you take into account the full range of tax and spending cuts they’re proposing, there are no benefits for those at the bottom of the income distribution.

但当你考虑到他们提议的全方位减税和支出削减措施时，你就会发现，收入分配底层的人并没有得到任何好处。

Instead, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds :

相反，国会预算办公室 (CBO) 发现：

CBO estimates that if the legislation was enacted, U.S. households, on average, would see an increase in the resources provided to them by the government over the 2026–2034 period.

CBO 估计，如果该立法颁布，美国家庭在 2026 年至 2034 年期间平均会看到政府向他们提供的资源有所增加。

The changes would not be evenly distributed among households.

这些变化不会在家庭之间平均分配。

The agency estimates that in general, resources would decrease for households in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the highest decile.

该机构估计，一般来说，收入分配最低十分之一（十分之一）的家庭的资源将会减少，而收入分配最高十分之一的家庭的资源将会增加。

It’s not just CBO.

这不仅仅是国会预算办公室。

Researchers working with the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) have published similar findings .

研究宾大沃顿商学院预算模型 (PWBM) 的研究人员也发表了类似的发现。

Those in the top 0.1% of the income distribution—i.e. those making at least $4.3 million per year—would get an average bump in their after-tax income of $390,000 while those in the bottom 20% of the income distribution—i.e. those making less than $17k per year—would lose about $820 per year in after-tax-and-transfer income.

收入分配最顶层 0.1% 的人，即那些年收入至少 430 万美元的人，其税后收入将平均增加 39 万美元，而那些处于收入分配最底层 20% 的人，即那些年收入低于 17,000 美元的人每年将损失约 820 美元的税后和转移收入。

In other words, the House package strips resources from those at the bottom in order to provide a massive windfall to a small group of people at the very top.

换句话说，众议院的一揽子计划剥夺了底层民众的资源，以便为一小部分顶层人士提供巨额意外之财。

You can read more about the big winners and loser here and here .

您可以在此处和此处阅读有关大赢家和大输家的更多信息。

Researchers at the Groundwork Collaborative don’t think much of the GOP’s fiscal package either.

基础合作组织的研究人员也不太看好共和党的财政方案。

Instead of a beautiful bunch of tax breaks for American workers, they’re highlighting 13 ways the House bill increases the cost of living for working families.

他们没有强调为美国工人提供一系列美丽的税收减免，而是强调众议院法案增加工薪家庭生活成本的 13 种方式。

That’s one reason House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other lawmakers have dubbed it “One Big Ugly Bill.”

这就是众议院民主党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯和其他议员将其称为“一项丑陋的大法案”的原因之一。

Democrats aren’t just railing against the human and environmental harms the OBBBA will do, they’re joining a handful of republicans to gripe about the bill’s size as well.

民主党人不仅抱怨 OBBBA 对人类和环境造成的危害，他们还与少数共和党人一起抱怨该法案的规模。

For example, the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, Rep.

例如，众议院预算委员会的高级成员众议员。

Brendan Boyle (D, PA-02), complained that “[e]ven with these draconian cuts, their bill could add more to the deficit than any legislation in decades.”

布伦丹·博伊尔（D，PA-02）抱怨说，“即使进行了这些严厉的削减，他们的法案所增加的赤字可能比几十年来任何立法都要多。”

That’s a message the media has been hyping as well.

这也是媒体一直在炒作的信息。

By pointing to the recent Moody’s downgrade and a supposed rebuke from the bond ‘vigilantes,’ members of the press have tried to dissuade republicans from moving ahead with their big, budget-busting bill.

媒体人士以最近穆迪的降级以及所谓的债券“治安维护者”的谴责为由，试图劝阻共和党人不要推进其庞大的、破坏预算的法案。

Tobias Burns, who covers tax and the economy for The Hill , wrote How Trump’s big bill is shaking the bond market .

负责国会税务和经济事务的托拜厄斯·伯恩斯 (Tobias Burns) 撰写了《特朗普的巨额法案如何撼动债券市场》一文。

Over at Bloomberg , readers were told, The Bond Market Hates His ‘Beautiful’ Tax Bill .

彭博社告诉读者，债券市场讨厌他的“漂亮”税收法案。

CNN’s David Goldman wrote, Why the bond market is so worried about the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ .

美国有线电视新闻网 (CNN) 的大卫·戈德曼 (David Goldman) 写道，为什么债券市场如此担心“又大又美的法案”。

And The New Republic declared, The GOP’s Budget Hawks Will Bankrupt the Country .

新共和国宣称，共和党的预算鹰派将使国家破产。

Republicans are mostly unnerved.

共和党人大多感到不安。

They’re responding in the usual way, claiming that the tax cuts (along with some yet-to-be-announced deregulation) will unleash the entrepreneurial spirit, turbocharge economic growth, and generate so much new revenue that the deficit will actually shrink.

他们以通常的方式回应，声称减税（以及一些尚未宣布的放松管制）将释放企业家精神，推动经济增长，并产生大量新收入，从而实际上减少赤字。

When told otherwise by CBO, Speaker Johnson referred to their projections as “historically totally unreliable,” adding that 84% of CBO’s number crunchers are donors to democrats.

当国会预算办公室另有说法时，约翰逊议长称他们的预测“在历史上完全不可靠”，并补充说国会预算办公室 84% 的数据处理人员都是民主党的捐助者。

He claimed that CBO is giving them “no credit” for the economic growth that will be spurred on by the tax cuts, and he insisted that when you factor in the revenue from the tariffs, it will be “deficit reducing at the end of the day.”

他声称，国会预算办公室对减税刺激的经济增长“没有给予任何信任”，他坚称，当你将关税收入考虑在内时，“最终将减少赤字”。

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is also shrugging off (and slagging off) the Congressional Budget Office, calling the rules that are used to “score” the bill’s cost nonsensical .

财政部长斯科特·贝森特（Scott Bessent）也对国会预算办公室不屑一顾（并痛斥），称用于“评分”该法案成本的规则毫无意义。

Well, it depends who you ask.

好吧，这取决于你问谁。

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill's provisions would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next decade(2026-2034).

据国会预算办公室（CBO）称，该法案的条款将在未来十年（2026-2034）使联邦赤字增加3.8万亿美元。

So that’s the “size” of the bill according to the official scorekeeper.

这就是官方记分员所说的账单“大小”。

When the House version of the OBBBA was evaluated using the PWBM, the cost came in substantially lower at $2.8 trillion, using conventional methods.

当使用 PWBM 评估众议院版本的 OBBBA 时，使用传统方法的成本大幅降低为 2.8 万亿美元。

With dynamic scoring, the methodology many republicans say they prefer, the size of the bill actually increases to nearly $4 trillion.

通过动态评分（许多共和党人表示他们更喜欢这种方法），法案的规模实际上增加到近 4 万亿美元。

Either way, the biggest increases in the deficit come in the first three years because many of the bill’s provisions—e.g. no tax on tips, overtime, auto loan interest, etc.—are set to expire after 2028.

无论哪种方式，赤字增幅最大的都是在头三年，因为该法案的许多条款——例如小费、加班费、汽车贷款利息等不征税——将于 2028 年之后到期。

All of the big headline-grabbing estimates suggest a massive bill that some warn could add more than $5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

所有引人注目的重大估计都表明，一项巨额法案可能会在未来十年内使国家债务增加超过 5 万亿美元。

But as one analyst who closely follows the federal budget observed :

但正如一位密切关注联邦预算的分析师所观察到的：

When you see deficit projections around the new tax bill - keep in mind how its scored.

当您看到新税法案的赤字预测时，请记住其得分如何。

For a nano-second, the TCJA individual tax cuts "expire", a new baseline is set & $3.4-$4.6 trillion in tax revenue is "restored" and then immediately "cut" again.

在一纳秒内，TCJA 个人减税“到期”，设定新的基准，“恢复”3.4-4.6 万亿美元的税收收入，然后立即再次“削减”。

This "lost tax revenue" is built into the projection.

这种“税收收入损失”已纳入预测中。

The actual deficit expansion is much smaller and easily handled by a $30 trillion+ GDP economy.

实际赤字扩张要小得多，而且 GDP 超过 30 万亿美元的经济体很容易应对。

It’s a wonky but important aspect of the debate that revolves around a very inside-the-beltway budget scoring concept known as the “baseline.”

这是这场辩论中一个奇怪但重要的方面，这场辩论围绕着一个非常内部的预算评分概念，即“基线”。

Basically, there’s a disagreement about whether it makes more sense to “score” legislation using a “current law” baseline or a “current policy” baseline.

基本上，对于使用“现行法律”基线还是“现行政策”基线对立法进行“评分”是否更有意义存在分歧。

Under current law, the 2017 tax cuts would expire at the end of this year, and the government would end up collecting more revenue in the years ahead, thereby reducing the deficits that would otherwise occur.

根据现行法律，2017年的减税政策将于今年年底到期，政府最终将在未来几年获得更多收入，从而减少原本可能出现的赤字。

By treating future revenue as a fleeting (current law) reality before acknowledging that this revenue will never materialize, CBO paints a much “uglier” fiscal picture over the coming decade.

在承认这种收入永远不会实现之前，将未来收入视为转瞬即逝的（现行法律）现实，国会预算办公室描绘了未来十年“更加丑陋”的财政图景。

Democrats, including former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, don’t appreciate this nuance.

包括前财政部长拉里·萨默斯在内的民主党人并不理解这种细微差别。

He’s accusing republicans of waging a “war on math” by downplaying the true “cost” of their bill.

他指责共和党人低估了法案的真正“成本”，从而发动了“数学战争”。

I understand the politics.

我了解政治。

Having an eye-poppingly large price tag to club your opponents with seems like a good way turn voters against the bill.

用一个令人瞠目结舌的大价格标签来打击你的对手似乎是让选民反对该法案的好方法。

But to be honest, I’d rather evaluate the size of the package in terms of the net, new stimulus it will provide to the economy.

但说实话，我更愿意根据将为经济提供的净新刺激来评估该计划的规模。

That’s where the inflation risk lies.

这就是通胀风险所在。

So how much is that?

那么那是多少呢？

Again, it depends on the estimate, but it could increase the deficit by ~$180B per year on average.

同样，这取决于估计，但平均每年可能会增加约 $180B 的赤字。

I’ll readily concede that this is an ugly bill.

我很容易承认这是一项丑陋的法案。

A cruel bill.

残酷的法案。

But is it a budget buster that puts us on an unsustainable fiscal path?

但这是否是预算破坏导致我们走上不可持续的财政道路？

Did it merit a credit downgrade?

它值得信用降级吗？

Will it ignite inflation by pushing out too much money?

是否会因推出过多货币而引发通胀？

I had a chance to share my views in a recent appearance on Bloomberg TV.

我最近有机会在彭博电视上分享我的观点。

Only two republicans voted against the bill: Ohio’s Warren Davidson and Kentucky’s Thomas Massie.

只有两名共和党人投票反对该法案：俄亥俄州的沃伦·戴维森和肯塔基州的托马斯·马西。

Maryland GOP Rep.

马里兰州共和党众议员

Andy Harris, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, voted “present.”

自由核心小组主席安迪·哈里斯 (Andy Harris) 投票“出席”。