Adam Watson (00:00.588)
Welcome back to “Simplifying the state,” the podcast where we break down politics. You don’t have to try and understand geopolitical affairs by watching Instagram Reels. As always, I’m Adam Watson.
Nicholas (00:11.64)
I’m Nicholas Perrin.
Adam Watson (00:13.248)
Okay. So, big news in recent weeks has been the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Yes, that is the official name of the bill that has made it through the House. It made it through the House by one vote. It is the major piece of Republican legislation. Some people may know it as reconciliation, but only if you’re really tapped into politics, basically.
It does a bunch of different things: it changes tax laws alters spending and does a bunch of stuff like that. So, basically, we here today are going to be talking about that bill. Okay, so to start off, the bill, like we said, has made it through the House as of today by one vote. It has yet to make it through the Senate, although it looks like it will not succeed. The Republicans leading the opposition to the bill mainly include Rand Paul, and he has said that he has the necessary senators—three or four, I believe—to oppose this bill. Of those senators, I know there is Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul, who’s leading the charge from Kentucky, Jim Justice from West Virginia, and possibly others he has not disclosed. A couple that are being looked at include Tom Tillis of North Carolina, who’s up for reelection in 2026, so that is probably impacting his decision.
So, Nicholas, what do you think Republicans might be thinking who are opposing this bill? Obviously, it’s a little different for Republicans in the Senate than it is for the House. Some of them aren’t up for reelection for a little bit, but some of them are in 2026. What do you think their logic is here in opposing Trump?
Nicholas (02:23.583)
Specifically senators.
Adam Watson (02:25.607)
Yeah, specifically the difference between the rationale in the House and the Senate.
Nicholas (02:33.688)
Well, there are some members of the House who have come out and said—like Marjorie Taylor Greene came out and said that she would not have voted for the Big Beautiful Bill if she saw the provision that states would not be allowed to regulate Artificial Intelligence for a decade. That could be a reason for some post-House regret for voting for the bill. Now, for senators, I would assume the rationale could be about the same, but there might be some extra kinks that I have not heard of. So what are some of those?
Adam Watson (03:40.686)
Right, yeah. I think the House and the Senate are two very different political arenas. Obviously, senators are a statewide office, whereas House seats are more local. They answer to the constituents within their district, not the whole state. So, depending upon the constituency of their district, that would probably affect how hardline they are on some of these issues. Although I do find it interesting that that was the issue Marjorie Taylor Greene had with the bill. I mean, obviously, it does seem like an issue, but I find it a little curious that that was the only issue within the bill. I assume senators are probably looking more at the Medicaid and Medicare cuts, the SNAP food cuts, because most of the senators who have opposed this live in states that have a large rural constituency. Most red states have a rural constituency, and these cuts would significantly harm them.
Talking about those cuts for a second, here are just a couple things that are included in the bill. The plan would call for roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts, the bulk of which would come by extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts. The bill includes temporary changes designed to make good on several of Trump’s campaign pledges. One of his most iconic from the campaign was no taxes on overtime. So, basically, it would create a temporary provision to exempt people from taxes on overtime between 2026 and 2028. Republicans plan to pay for the tax cuts in the bill by doing a couple of things, one of which is drastically scaling back a lot of the tax credits for clean energy passed as part of former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The bill would end the $7,500 credit for buying an electric car. It also gets rid of tax credits for homeowners who purchase solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal heat pumps—which basically you put in the basement and then it heats your house by using the heat of the earth, it’s a whole
thing—energy-efficient windows, and other stuff like that. Homeowners are currently eligible for a tax credit worth 30% of the cost of the purchase of these environmentally friendly parts of their house, so that would then get rid of that.
Nicholas (06:41.056)
And I think it’s good to mention that Elon Musk is against the Big Beautiful Bill for a few reasons. One of the big reasons is that the reduced or removal of the tax benefit for EVs will hurt his business. That’s a big reason why he’s starting to oppose the bill. A quote he said, yeah…
Adam Watson (07:02.146)
Right. I wanted to talk about that. I wanted to know about that because I thought that was—I thought that this whole thing is very funny, what’s been happening with Elon Musk and Donald Trump recently. Like, it started like two days ago and it has descended from Elon Musk saying this is not a good bill. He and Trump got into it a little bit, and now Elon Musk has just come out and said, “Hey, guess what? Trump is not releasing the Epstein files because he’s on them,” and that’s what he actually tweeted. It’s just hilarious to me that it started with, “This is not a great bill,” and has now escalated to “Trump is on the Epstein files.” That is just a massive shift from where it started to where it is now, and that’s just kind of funny to me.
Nicholas (07:48.428)
Yeah, a quote from Elon Musk: He called the Big Beautiful Bill a “disgusting abomination.” So he’s really not taking this well, as you’ve said.
Adam Watson (07:57.72)
Well, no, I mean, here’s the thing. I think there are a couple of reasons he’s opposed to it. One is because, like you said, the EV tax credit is one of the big things that has helped his electric car business, Tesla. I mean, Teslas are not really cheap, and so obviously that $7,500 tax credit helps people purchase EVs because EVs are good for the environment in terms of carbon emissions. Obviously, he’s probably upset about that. And then also, this bill probably does not cut taxes for the rich as much as he’d want to, I’m assuming. That’s probably a reason he is opposed to this bill now, which—I mean, he’s already the richest man in the world. I don’t know why he needs more tax cuts.
I know why he needs more tax cuts—because he wants more money. Exactly. Yeah, I mean, it’s just hilarious to me that a few days ago he was in the Oval Office shaking hands with Trump, doing this whole celebration, and now they’re in a Twitter war. Trump is threatening to cut Elon Musk’s SpaceX contracts, which are kind of the only thing keeping SpaceX afloat right now. I mean…
Nicholas (08:57.186)
Bigger is better.
Adam Watson (09:22.934)
They are not a very profitable business without those government contracts. And now it’s escalated to Elon Musk saying Donald Trump is on the Epstein files, that’s why he’s not releasing them. It’s just a massive, kind of a back-and-forth between these two billionaires.
Nicholas (09:43.448)
I don’t think Trump likes Tesla very much anymore. It’s a big computer, but like…
Adam Watson (09:47.446)
No, I don’t think he likes Tesla. Yeah. The clip from you—I still cannot get over that there was like a car infomercial on the White House lawn. All right. Back to the topic at hand. Additionally, for the first time in U.S. history, this legislation puts a price tag on applying for asylum, proposing a fee of $1,000. It would also put various fees on different aspects of the immigration system, like sponsoring children—undocumented children—that would be another $1,000, and a bunch of other stuff. So, now people who are fleeing to the United States are going to have to cough up money that they probably do not have in order to apply for asylum here, which is just kind of crazy. The Republican plan would also cut $330 billion from the student loan system by scrapping several existing repayment options, including the Biden-era SAVE program that based student loan payments on income and household size. The Republicans are replacing it with a new system, which—I haven’t read much about it because it’s like a hundred-page bill. I think it was a thousand pages. Yeah, it was a thousand pages.
Nicholas (10:42.925)
Yeah, and that.
Adam Watson (11:12.366)
Which I guess explains why a lot of Republicans did not read it before they voted on it. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit over the next 10 years and leave 10.9 million people uninsured because of cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Real quick, I just want to explain what the cuts to Medicaid and Medicare are. There are some cuts to the actual programs themselves, but the main thing that people are concerned about—kicking that many people off of their health care—it’s basically, so for Medicaid and Medicare, there are work requirements and you have to document this stuff. The Republicans would like to put more documentation, more recording things—you have to go to offices and websites and phone, it’s like re-register more often, which would kick people off of their health insurance because—I don’t know if you know this, this is probably going to come as a shock to a lot of people, but government bureaucracy is not very efficient. I know, it’s a shock and a surprise, but the concern is that if you increase the amount of—if you decrease the time in between the different registrations for these programs, so like if you have work requirements and you have to go in every month or every six months, which is more frequent than you used to, the concern is that people who are working jobs who do not have flexible schedules, who could maybe not get out to an office to re-register, or like people who live in very rural areas who cannot just take off a day from work to go from their rural area to the nearest office—which, now that they’ve closed some of them, would be even more difficult—that would lead to people getting kicked off of their Medicaid and Medicare, which they may need to live.
Adam Watson (13:31.458)
Really quick, though, I thought there was a very interesting Republican response to this. Did you see this? The Iowa senator Joni Ernst—the “we’re all going to die” senator. Have you seen that?
Nicholas (13:41.368)
What happened?
Adam Watson (13:42.592)
Okay, so basically, there’s an Iowa senator, Joni Ernst. She was at a town hall. People were talking to her about the possible cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. She responded, “We’re all gonna die.” Not like “We’re all gonna die, my God, we’re all gonna die,” more like, “I mean, we’re all gonna die eventually, so what does it even matter?”
That made me laugh for two reasons. The first was because a lot of Republicans have been going on the talk shows saying there aren’t going to be any Medicaid or Medicare cuts, there aren’t going to be really any cuts. And then Joni Ernst is just kind of out here saying, “Who cares? We’re all going to die anyway. What do you care?” Just kind of being very cavalier with people’s health care. You haven’t seen that?
Nicholas (14:37.3)
That does remind me of something. Back when you said—what even was it? Yeah, like the tax on people seeking asylum. That reminded me of the gentleman’s agreement between Japan and the United States back in the Gilded Age. This time it’s one-sided, but now there’s going to be removal of safety nets, just senator saying we’re all going to die, a lot of tax cuts, removal of regulation, and it all points to a certain age. I don’t know. Interesting.
Adam Watson (15:16.588)
Yeah, I mean, we might be headed for the Gilded Age part two, but this time with fun Instagram and social media edits. So that’ll be fun. Yeah, reduced regulation, extremely high wealth disparity. Yeah, I could see it. Gilded Age part two.
Nicholas (15:24.779)
Yeah.
Nicholas (15:39.064)
And onto the Medicaid thing, I think it’s good to note that three Republican senators who have previously tried to stop cuts to Medicaid—the trio being Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Josh Hawley—have been expressing concern about the cuts to Medicaid and have previously tried to stop cuts before. They weren’t successful that time, but maybe they’ll get the chance to this time.
Adam Watson (16:15.352)
Yeah. Here’s the thing I find very interesting about Josh Hawley. He is one of our senators from Missouri, obviously, but a lot of people might not know that if they don’t pay attention to politics. It’s hard to say, honestly, if people know who their senator is.
Nicholas (16:26.048)
Yeah, obviously. Everyone.
Adam Watson (16:44.152)
Unless they’ve made national headlines. I’m sure the people of Vermont know that Bernie Sanders is their senator—it’s kind of hard to miss Bernie Sanders—but I think Josh Hawley is trying to set up a presidential run. I think he’s trying to set up a presidential run in 2028, and I think he is laying the groundwork of being MAGA, but pro-labor and pro-union and pro-middle class, working class. That’s why he’s really going out and sticking up for, or at least trying to stick up for, Medicaid and Medicare against cuts. Because a couple years ago, you didn’t see him saying anything about this. In fact, he was a pretty hardline Trump—whatever Trump says—Republican. Now he has strayed from the pack and has been butting heads with Trump about a bunch of different stuff. So, I think he’s really trying to set himself up for a presidential run.
Nicholas (17:50.872)
That is intriguing, and it does make sense. But I’m not sure how successful that’ll be, because I feel like the memory of him and January 6 is still pretty fresh in a lot of people’s minds.
Adam Watson (18:03.948)
I don’t know. It might not be as fresh as Democrats might hope it is if he is actually the—he won in Missouri again in 2024 against a Marine veteran, Lucas Kunce. So, I mean, that is Missouri. It is Missouri, which is a pretty safe red state, but yeah, I’d be curious to see how he fares in the national primary campaign and then in the general election.
Adam Watson (18:33.966)
OK, this bill would also lower the dependent age for SNAP food benefits from 18 to 7—not 17, 7. So in the eyes of this bill, if you’re under the age of 7, you don’t qualify for food assistance. You can stick it out on your own and go get to work. Why do you need government assistance?
Nicholas (18:58.754)
Gilded age.
Adam Watson (19:01.698)
Go work in the mines to earn your food.
Nicholas (19:04.517)
By the way, the Senate election was in 2024.
Adam Watson (19:08.110)
Oh right, it was Eric Schmitt who was in 2022, not Josh (Hawley).
Nicholas (19:11.670)
Yeah, I don’t know either. That’s pretty crazy.
Adam Watson (19:19.842)
Brain fart.
Yeah, this bill would also end the $200 excess tax imposed on the purchase or transfer of silencers, and eliminate registration.
Which… I don’t know why.
Adam Watson (19:40.782)
I mean, if you have a gun, why do you also need a silencer? But then also, you don’t want to pay a $200 tax for it, right?
Nicholas (19:54.771)
More silencers.
Adam Watson (19:56.792)
Like, what is the benefit to the middle class or to working America by getting rid of the tax on silencers?
Nicholas (20:05.644)
They can afford more guns with silencers. Yeah.
That’s the thing—silencers don’t even silence the guns that much. They just kind of muffle it a little bit.
Adam Watson (20:08.408)
Well, no, it’s not even the guns. It’s the silencers. So… what?
Adam Watson (20:20.642)
I don’t get it.
But honestly, that’s not even the worst thing in this bill.
So, Nicholas—one, do you think this could get past the Senate? And two, what do you think the general public reaction would be?
Nicholas (20:23.032)
Yeah, you’re not a gun guy.
Nicholas (20:40.792)
Well, as it stands, there would need to be a lot of changes for it to make it past the Senate, obviously. It’s seen quite a bit of backlash, and it would need a lot of Republican senators changing their minds.
If by some miracle it does pass with some similarity to how it is, I don’t think the public would take it too kindly—especially since Trump’s administration is already pretty unfavorable. I think it only has a 40% approval rate.
Adam Watson (21:10.798)
I’m not sure what its approval rating is, but I know it has a 50% disapproval rating.
Nicholas (21:16.928)
Yeah, so I don’t think people would be too happy about it.
Not even just because it’s attached to his administration, but because of the tax cuts and the cuts to Medicaid.
There’s really no benefit for the working people of America. It’s basically trickle-down—yeah, it’s just trickle-down economics part two. And we know how that went.
Adam Watson (21:43.982)
Yeah, there definitely is no benefit to middle- and working-class America by cutting Medicaid and Medicare.
Extending the tax cuts—you could argue that helps—but you’re also extending the tax cuts for the rich, who definitely need more tax cuts.
Nicholas (22:10.370)
Reaganomics, baby.
Adam Watson (22:13.146)
Yeah.
Also in this bill, it would repeal the excess tax on indoor tanning services. The 10% tax was included in the Affordable Care Act and has been in place since 2010.
So don’t worry, middle America. The Republicans hear you, and they are coming to repeal the 10% tax on tanning services. That is really bankrupting you.
Those tanning bills have got to be through the roof. That’s the main concern at the kitchen table of every middle-class American—how am I going to afford my tanning sessions this month?
Nicholas (22:53.056)
Exactly.
I mean, like, I should name names—actually, never mind. But yeah, that’s ridiculous.
Adam Watson (23:04.696)
I mean, Trump was elected on the idea that he was going to stick up for the working class, that he was going to reduce the economic burden felt by many Americans.
Yes, inflation has cooled since its peak, but the costs are still high.
Wages haven’t risen to reflect that. And now, the Republican-controlled Senate and the barely Republican-controlled House are passing a bill that would:
– Kick people off food assistance
– Kick people off health care
– Get rid of tax credits to purchase energy-efficient windows, which save you money
– Get rid of tax credits for solar panels and wind turbines
– Get rid of tax credits for electric vehicles, which cost way less to charge than to fuel a gas car
Adam Watson (25:03.054)
It would also cost people seeking asylum $1,000 just to get in.
And then there’s Trump enriching himself off the presidency—taking a plane from Qatar, making millions off his meme coin, hosting a cryptocurrency summit.
You’re right, this really is the Gilded Age part two—except we’ve got Rockefeller in the White House.
Nicholas (25:46.104)
No, if Elon Musk were in the White House, then it would be Rockefeller. But yeah, I get what you mean.
Adam Watson (25:55.266)
We literally have a robber baron in the White House while the wealth gap has gone through the roof.
And now he’s in an Andrew Carnegie–J.P. Morgan–style fight with another billionaire.
Adam Watson (26:52.558)
I don’t know.
All right—anyway.
We’ll be back next week with our next episode. We’ll be talking about the history—and how it connects to today—of price gouging in the Department of Defense.
I know—very riveting stuff. But I think it’ll be pretty interesting once we get into it.
Make sure to subscribe wherever you’re listening—Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, wherever.
If you enjoy the show, rate the podcast.
And we’ll see you next time.
