Why We Should Repent and Lament the Big Beautiful Bill, not Celebrate It!

On Friday, the 4^th of July, President Trump signed into law the BBB (Big Beautiful Bill). He celebrated it and exclaimed, “It has something for everyone” and “Everyone is happy about it”.

I suggest that a better response is repentance and lament. The BBB was quite big, but definitely not beautiful. And most definitely, not everyone one was happy about it.

We the People Opposed the BBB

Although the Senate was evenly divided on the bill (50/50), and the House approved it by a slim 218/214 vote, the U.S. people were (and are) clearly against it. I looked at more than a dozen national polls, and in each poll, the disapproval rate was significantly greater than the approval. For example, “by a 21-point margin, voters questioned in the most recent Fox News national poll opposed the federal budget legislation (38% favored vs. 59% opposed). The bill was also underwater in national surveys conducted this month by the Washington Post (minus 19 points), Pew Research (minus 20 points) and Quinnipiac University (minus 26 points).” So, why did so many of our representatives in DC vote against the wishes of their constituents? They were bribed or bullied. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) held the decisive vote in the Senate. She was against the bill, but then the GOP leadership carved out special provisions for Alaska if she would vote in favor. In the end, she voted for the bill although it would hurt the other 49 states. In the House, there were a dozen Republican fiscal hawks who opposed the BBB because it would cause a $3.35 trillion increase in the federal debt. They were bullied with the threat they would be “primaried” in the 2026 midterm election by well-funded PACs if they voted against the BBB. These fiscal hawks “caved” and somehow “forgot” their fiscal integrity.

The BBB will Cause More Harm than Good

There are a few items in the BBB that I would have voted for (such as removing taxes from tip income). But these items pale in significance to those who will suffer tremendously due to the bill. Almost 12 million citizens will lose their health insurance because of the cuts to Medicaid. As a result, it is estimated that 51,000 people will die prematurely each year due to these cuts. Hundreds of rural hospitals and clinics will close due to the Medicaid cuts.

Our federal debt will increase by about $3.35 trillion. The Medicare and Medicaid cuts could have been avoided if the tax breaks for the very wealthy had not been extended.

“Woe to Those Who Call Evil Good, and Good Evil”

These words were spoken by the prophet Isaiah over two thousand years ago… but are still quite important today. Politicians of all persuasions tend to exaggerate the goodness of their positions and hide the negative aspects. This should cause all of us to dig deeper, to read the ideas and arguments of those we don’t like, and to ask the tough questions. Let’s commit ourselves to examine all the important issues and follow the truth wherever it leads…even if it leads to repentance.

The Senate Version of the Big Beautiful Bill is Even More Immoral and Sinful

Yesterday, after a 27 hour “Vote A Rama”, the U.S. Senate approved Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” by the narrowest of margins. In fact, the vote was 50 senators in favor, and 50 against, with Vice-president Vance casting the tie-breaking vote in favor. The bill now goes back to the House of Representatives. It will probably be passed there, because enough House members will “cave” on their move cherished values.

I had hoped that some ethical Republican senators would make the “BBB”, the Big Beautiful Bill, a bit better. They dashed my hopes. They dashed the hopes of our citizens. They made the BBB even worse…they made it more “sinful”. Let me clarify. We are not a theocracy. We are a pluralistic democracy, albeit a very flawed democracy. Nevertheless, we as a nation have established legislation upon principles of social ethics borrowed from many places, including from religions (Judaism, Christianity, and others). When the proposals of the BBB fail to meet the most basic ethical requirements of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, it is sinful. Let’s look at three of the most immoral components of the BBB.

The Senate Version Would Raise the Federal Debt by $3.3 Trillion

Whereas the House version of the BBB would raise the federal debt by $2.4 trillion, the Senate proposal would add at least $3.3 trillion to federal deficits over a decade, according to the most recent analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Let’s call this (spending more money than we bring in) for what it really is: Stealing! Our contemporary generation is stealing from future generations! We all have heard this most basic of the Ten Commandments: “Thou Shalt Not Steal”. Democrats in the White House and in Congress have been guilty of raising the debt as frequently as Republicans, but Trump increased the debt more in his first term than any president in our national history. In the BBB, the Republican senators are enabling Trump 2.0 to do a repeat performance of his thievery.

The Senate Version Would Cause 11.8 Million People to Lose Their Health Insurance

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate version of the legislation would mean 11.8 million Americans will lose their health insurance by 2034 as federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare is reduced by roughly $1.1 trillion over that period. Let me repeat that number: 11.8 million of our neighbors will lose their health insurance! That is just the opposite of the Golden Rule: “Do unto Others as You would have Them Do unto You”. President Trump promised us that there would be no cuts to Medicare or to Medicaid. Given that it was the same Trump who pressured the senators to make these cuts, “we can trust the president to break his promises”.

The Senate Version Would Cause the Poor to Become Poorer and the Rich to Become Richer

The Republican version of the BBB will widen the gap between the poor and the rich. According to the best estimates, the poorest citizens will experience a 2% decline in their economic levels while the richest will increase their wealth by 4%. The BBB is actually taking money away from the poor to give a tax break to the most affluent among us. The bill extends nearly $4 trillion in tax cuts first passed in 2017 and partially pays for them by slashing spending on safety net programs: Medicare, Medicaid, the SNAP food program. Thousands and thousands of our citizens will suffer from unnecessary illnesses and pre-mature death.

The God described in the Scriptures hates any legislation that causes such pain. The God who fed manna to the Israelites in the desert wanted all to have “enough”. That same God later established the law of “gleaning”, so that no one would go hungry. In the Christian Scriptures, Jesus told his followers that apathy toward the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, was, in fact, directed towards himself. In taking up a collection for the starving, persecuted believers in Jerusalem, the Apostle Paul told Gentile Christians that God’s goal was “equality” in which no one had too much while others did not have enough (2 Corinthians 8-9).

The BBB breaks God’s heart. Representatives in the House: please vote it down, while you are still able to do so.

For Better or for Worse: This is Trump’s War. Will He Own It and Take Responsibility?

Over the weekend, President Trump authorized the US military to carry out air attacks by B2 bombers against Iranian nuclear sites. Fighter pilots executed his orders on Saturday. In a speech to the nation later that evening, Trump immediately claimed the attack was a “tremendous success” and that the stockpiles had been “obliterated”! Although the dust was supposed to settle these last three days, more uncertainty and inconsistencies have arisen. Vice-President Vance had to walk back Trump’s “obliteration” claim, by acknowledging that the degree of destruction has yet to be determined. Late on Monday, Trump brokered a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Nevertheless, Israel definitely (and Iran possibly) violated the ceasefire. This morning as he was leaving the White House for his NATO trip to Europe, he responded to questions from reporters. His anger was quite evident. “I am not happy with Israel”, he retorted as he criticized Israel for unloading bombs on Iran making a mockery of his ceasefire. As he walked away, Trump himself dropped the “F” bomb. “Israel and Iran have been fighting for so long and so hard, they don’t know what the F*** they’re doing”.

There is no doubt about it: This is Trump’s war. It was not a war of necessity. It was a war of choice. Trump owns it…for better or for worse. Trump (and those who support this war) must answer some essential questions. Was this attack legal? Why did Trump break his campaign promise to not take the US into another endless war in the Middle East? Did Netanyahu “play” Trump by appealing to his weak ego? Will this attack be similar to the decade-long war in Iraq? If Iran’s government is still in place and still has some uranium stockpiles, is it still a terrorist state? If this conflict escalates and oil prices skyrocket, will Trump take responsibility, or will he blame others?

Was it legal? Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article 1 of the US Constitution. Since the end of WWII, presidents (both Republicans and Democrats) have violated the Constitution, but they gave the appearance of obedience by alerting congressional leaders (usually the “gang of eight”) before attacks had been launched. Trump did not even alert Democrat leaders until after the attack had occurred. It sure seems clear, that the president violated the Constitution.

Although Trump and his supporters deny it, this air attack seems similar to the war in Iraq that began in 2003. In the lead up to both, it was claimed that hostilities would last only a few days. Presidents Bush and Trump mentioned “regime change” as a goal, which would take years…at least. Both presidents appealed to questionable intelligence. Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. According to national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard, Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Trump silenced her. Why?

Predictably, most Republican leaders have supported Trump and his attack. There have been sharp criticisms from some who previously defended Trump on every issue (like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon). Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican from Georgia and a staunch supporter of Trump, broke with the president on this military attack against Iran. She acknowledged that there’s a “very big divide” in the Republican party over the issue and that her position opposing foreign wars is becoming “more popular” among the MAGA base. On Monday she told CNN, “I got elected on the exact same campaign promises that President Trump got elected on. We promised no more foreign wars, no more regime change,”. Earlier in the day, in a lengthy post on X, she denounced Trump’s decision to authorize US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites. She claimed it “feels like a complete bait and switch” of his MAGA promises.

Taylor Greene was not the only Republican congressional representative to criticize the president’s decision. Thomas Massie is a conservative congressman from Kentucky. A week ago, prior to the attack, Massie had co-introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution in the House of Representatives in an attempt to restrict the president’s ability to escalate tensions with Iran. “The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States,” Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. “Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.” After Trump announced that the attacks had happened, Massie responded, ”This is not Constitutional”. (Trump reacted not with evidence, but by creating a PAC in Kentucky to try and defeat Massie in the 2026 primary.)

I believe the War Powers Resolution should go forward and be voted on. We should make our cowardly representatives go on the record about this war. Polls taken after the strikes (Reuters, CNN) reveal that a majority of US citizens disapprove of Trump’s attack with only about 44% in favor. Stay tuned for more details.

Donald Trump Should Learn Important Immigration Lessons from Ronald Reagan

Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan have various experiences in common (both were Republicans, both served as president, etc.). Today I would like to concentrate on their similar challenges regarding undocumented immigrants. During the Reagan administration in the 1980s, there were civil wars going on in Central America, especially Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. To save their lives and the lives of their children, many Central Americans migrated north and crossed into the United States without the appropriate documents. It is estimated there were about 5 million undocumented immigrants in the nation at that time. President Reagan knew some essential information that helped to shape his decisions.

The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants had found employment in agriculture, construction, restaurants, etc. and were making significant contributions to the US economy.
These immigrants were paying taxes: sales taxes, property taxes, and even taxes to the IRS without much hope of receiving the benefits (Social Security, Medicare) that citizens receive.
The crime rate among these immigrants was much lower than the average crime rate of US born citizens. (Entering the United States without documents is appropriately classified not as a violent crime or felony, but rather as a misdemeanor.)
Most of these immigrants were putting down roots in the culture, by participating in religious congregations, by their children actively involved in primary and secondary education, Little League, etc. Nevertheless, many lived in fear of being arrested.
Just like immigrants in previous times (the Irish, the Italians, Puerto Ricans, and many others) these Central Americans were scapegoated and incorrectly blamed for society’s ills.

Although Reagan had his share of human flaws, at times he demonstrated true leadership and a compassionate heart. Together with a Democrat controlled Congress, Reagan pushed legislation that became the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The immigrants had to meet certain requirements: they had to pay a penalty and back taxes, they had to have lived in the United States for at least five years, etc. Far from conducting “raids” on job sites where the undocumented worked, the Reagan administration encouraged them to continue working in their “illegal” jobs. Knowing that the immigrants would naturally be fearful of interacting with government authorities, Reagan urged congregations and groups like World Relief to become the intermediaries that would offer legal advice, English classes, and other services. (My church, the Evangelical Free Church of Des Plaines, Illinois, participated in this project). The program was compassionate. For example, if immigrants had not lived in the country for a full five years, they were advised to “lay low”, keep on working and improving their English until they met the five-year requirement.

President Reagan signed the bill in a ceremony at the Statue of Liberty where he affirmed, “The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”

The Act was an overwhelming success! The majority of the immigrants came out of the shadows, regularized their legal status, continued in their jobs, and most importantly, kept their families intact. Immigrants becoming active participants in our society is truly “the American way”.

The immigration situation today is quite similar to the challenges that President Reagan faced. The bullet point information at the beginning of this post accurately describes the ten million undocumented immigrants in our midst. During the past week, Trump admitted that our economy desperately needs the labor provided by these immigrants on farms and factories, hotels and restaurants, and in construction. Nevertheless, President Trump has seemed bewildered. He said raids on immigrants are on again, then off again, then on again. Mr. President, on this issue, learn from the example of Ronald Reagan. Do the right thing and work with Congress to pass a bill similar to Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Act.

Is Trump’s Deployment of the National Guard Illegal? Read His Own Words

We are in the midst of a heated, although necessary, national debate regarding the freedom of speech and assembly in our country. Five days ago, thousands of Americans protested the ICE raids in Los Angeles, California and neighboring cities. Although largely peaceful, there were some acts of violence, and arrests were made. The LAPD, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and California Governor Gavin Newsom all affirmed that the situation was under control. Nevertheless, President Trump called up and deployed 2000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles. On Sunday, Governor Newsom requested the president to withdraw this deployment because the presence of federal troops was counterproductive and increased the unrest. The president refused to do so. In fact, yesterday he deployed an additional 2000 National Guardsmen plus 700 Marines. Our national debate involves the legality of the right to assemble and to express dissent plus the calling up of the National Guard (and Marines).

The First Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear regarding the freedoms of speech and assembly. It affirms “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Of course, if a gathering of people turns violent, the police are responsible for restoring order.

During his first term in office, Trump faced similar circumstances in which people protested the killing of George Floyd. In an ABC News town hall on September 15, 2020, President Trump was asked how he would restore law and order to our nation. Trump’s answer was quite clear. “Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws. We can’t move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection but there’s no reason to ever do that, even in the Portland (Oregon) case. We can’t call in the National Guard unless we’re requested by a governor.” (Trump’s political and military advisors had told him not to break the law, especially in light of the need to first obtain a governor’s request for deployment. In addition, the National Guard, by law, cannot make arrests.)

In the current debate, according to his own words, Trump is breaking the law.

—————

Update as of June 13 according to th New York Times:

A federal judge issued an order late Thursday blocking President Trump from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles, and ordered the administration to return control of the forces to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The administration quickly filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which temporarily stopped the ruling from taking effect while it considers the case.

The restraining order from District Judge Charles R. Breyer, which would have taken effect Friday at noon Pacific time, delivered a sharp rebuke to President Trump’s effort to deploy thousands of troops on the streets of an American city, a move that has contributed to nearly a week of political rancor and protests across the country.

“His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Judge Breyer wrote of Mr. Trump’s orders.

The Amiable Divorce between Musk and Trump Became Messy and Ugly Last Week: Important Lessons from the “Bromance Breakup”

Full Disclosure: I am not a fan of Elon Musk. As I wrote in a previous post, Musk’s gutting of USAID was cruel and immoral. His action has caused the premature death of thousands of people. Nevertheless, the breakup of the Musk/Trump “bromance” teaches us some valuable, albeit sad, political lessons. The divorce began to go downhill last week and then got much worse.

On Tuesday, Musk did not hold back when he denounced Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget bill: “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.” The president responded, “I’m very disappointed in Elon.” On Thursday, the breakup between Musk and Trump turned even nastier. During his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a reporter asked the president about Elon Musk’s sharp criticisms of Trump’s budget bill. Trump reacted, “He hasn’t said anything about me that’s bad. I’d rather have him criticize me than the bill.” Musk was quick to grant him his wish. By the end of the meeting, the two had quickly moved from what had been legislative differences of opinion into sharp personal attacks on their respective social platforms. Musk live-tweeted his responses to Trump’s comments on his social media platform X, getting progressively more personal. And Trump responded hard on his own platform, Truth Social. Late Thursday afternoon, Musk responded to an X user who called for the president’s impeachment by simply saying, “Yes.”

Trump tried to psychoanalyze the motivation for Musk’s outbursts. “Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Musk had highlighted Trump’s hypocrisy by mentioning various quotes in which Trump had campaigned with promises of a balanced budget. These balanced budget promises were directly contradicted by the official predictions that the “big, beautiful” bill would increase the debt several trillion dollars over the next decade. Trump tried to defend himself by attacking Musk, “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.”

Musk then hit Trump in his most vulnerable spot: his election “victories”. Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Trump campaign and claimed he was in fact the reason Trump won the presidency. Musk affirmed, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House, and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk later added: “Such ingratitude.”

Musk fired another bombshell. He accused the Trump administration of withholding records about convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein because it involved Trump himself. “Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,” Musk wrote on X. “Have a nice day, DJT!” Musk later added: “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.”

Both Trump and Musk realize, in their saner moments, that their breakup is damaging them both. As master of the art of distraction, Trump changed his emphasis to immigration issues over the weekend (Abrego Garcia, Los Angeles, etc.). Nevertheless, the breakup is worth analyzing. Readers can find complete lists of the attacks and counterattacks online, but those mentioned above are sufficient to warrant some sad, but true, lessons.

Cronyism is rampant in our government. Trump admitted handing out “Governmental Subsidies and Contracts” to Musk based on quid pro quo rather than merit.
The weaponization of government agencies is on the rise. Trump campaigned against the Democrats’ weaponization of agencies that were supposedly non-partisan. His own weaponization of the Department of Justice and other agencies, plus his threats against Musk are just as bad or even worse.

Our democracy is being ruined by the influx of unlimited money in our elections. Money is buying our politicians and our elections. We must return to reasonable caps on political donations.

The Transactional Relationship between Musk and Trump has Come to an End

The “special relationship” between President Donald Trump and the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, has come to the end of the line. On Wednesday night, Elon announced that his assignment as a “special government employee” at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was ending. On Friday that decision became official as the president gave Musk a farewell celebration in the White House. Of course, Trump tried to “spin” the story by claiming Musk’s actions as very successful. Read on for the “rest of the story”.

They had a transactional relationship that had hardly been created “in heaven”. Therefore, when they were no longer useful to each other, it was time to call it quits, although they have done so rather amiably.

As head of DOGE, Musk led the crusade to make huge reductions to federal spending. (I do applaud the attempt to move towards a balanced budget. It is Musk’s methods that I criticize.) He infamously appeared on stage with a chain saw and promised to cut out waste, corruption, and fraud from federal agencies. He originally predicted he would save $2 trillion, but in fact, the savings are closer to $150 billion. Even these “savings” lack documented evidence. Some of his cuts, like the hollowing out of USAID, were unbelievably cruel and caused the premature, unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of malnourished and sick people all over the world. Other agencies saw the number of their employees decimated with a chain saw with no rhyme nor reason, instead of the needed precision of a scalpel. For example, his cuts included the federal employees who were responsible for overseeing our atomic energy program. These workers had to be rehired within days. Some of his cost-cutting firings have caused more loss in federal income than the dollars that were saved. A prime example is the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) whose personnel numbers were cut in half during the tax season. Not only did this cause significant delays in the processing of tax returns, a reduction in the availability of taxpayer assistance services, and problems with the implementation of recent tax code changes. It will also greatly reduce the number of audits performed on those suspected of trying to cheat the system. The amount underpaid by these cheaters is measured in millions and perhaps billions of dollars, which will now not be collected.

Most of Musk’s indiscriminate cuts are tied up in the courts. The Trump administration is facing a lawsuit for violating federal privacy laws for giving DOGE access to systems that contained personal information on millions of Americans without their consent. The payments for these legal fees will be astronomical. For all of these reasons, Musk’s approval rate in national polls have fallen to about 35-38%, several points below Trump’s. Consumers have also shown their displeasure by boycotting Tesla cars. Sales have fallen significantly this spring not only in the United States, but also in Canada and by a whopping 50% in Europe.

Nevertheless, Musk is rich enough that he didn’t need to hide his opinions. He hated to be a “yes man”. He publicly feuded with members of Trump’s cabinet. He recently pointed out that he disagrees with the Trump agenda on some key issues. For example, he criticized the “big, beautiful budget” bill for increasing the national debt by about $4 trillion which is directly opposite to the goals of DOGE. As this bill has moved to the U.S. Senate, it now depends on the courage (or lack thereof) of Republican senators. Will they increase the debt by giving beautiful tax breaks to the very rich, while at the same time cutting benefits to Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and Veterans? Musk is gone, but there still is time to correct some of his mistakes.

Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill”: Are Republicans Gaining the Whole World of Wealthy Donors, but Losing Their Soul?

This past week Republicans in the House of Representative passed President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill”. It is really big, but is it beautiful? It is a megabill that funds a laundry list of items on the president’s agenda. It now needs to go the Senate, where it will likely be modified and then returned to the House for “reconciliation”.

Budgets are moral documents, insofar as they represent one’s priorities. It is appropriate to raise moral questions about this legislation. Will this budget bill help or hurt most Americans, but especially our poorest citizens? Is it beautiful or is it selfishness disguised as efficiency?

What might Jesus of Nazareth say about this big, beautiful budget bill? Jesus (revered as the Son of God by billions around the globe, and as a great moral teacher by many others) taught a lot about money and economics. He warned that human greed is deceitful and destroys true life. He raised a probing question: What does it profit a person to gain the whole world, if they lose their soul? (Mark 8:36) If many people are losing their soul, their conscience, their compassion for others, this loss of our soul will be felt by “the least of these” that Jesus loved so much.

Jesus also warned his followers that human rulers usually lord it over their fellow citizens, while at the same time, they lie about all the “good” they are doing for people. (Luke 22:25) Therefore, we the people need to be diligent and discern the truth from the propaganda misinformation that comes at us from both sides of the aisle. I would like to “forward” Jesus’s question to the Republican members of the House of Representatives. Although they claim this bill would do so much good, if it hurts our neediest neighbors, are we losing our soul?

Since both Republicans and Democrats tend to spin information for their own advantage, what sources can we trust? I suggest the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is nonpartisan. Both Republicans and Democrats love the CBO when it backs up their claims, but they both hate it when it reveals their distortions and disinformation. (“Figures never lie, but liars do figure”) The CBO is the closest thing we have to an impartial “referee” in Congress. The predictions below are the estimates of the CBO based upon the budget bill as currently passed in the House of Representatives.

The most significant items in the bill are (1) the renewal of the Trump 2017 income tax legislation scheduled to end this year; (2) cuts in Medicare and Medicaid benefits; (3) cuts in food stamp benefits / SNAP.

Democrats claim that the legislation favors the very rich whereas Republicans affirm that the budget bill is beautiful for all citizens, especially the middle class and the poorest people. The CBO estimates that, due to the provisions of this bill, the wealthiest 10% of the population will see a 4% increase in their wealth next year. The CBO predicts the poorest 10% of our people will see a 2% decline in their income next year and a 4% drop in the following year.
President Trump promised not to cut Medicare or Medicaid benefits. The CBO predicts over $800 billion will be cut from these programs. Republicans claim most of this is due to waste, fraud, and the removal of “dead people” on the list who are currently receiving benefits. The CBO denies these claims. It sure seems to me that Trump broke his promise and would sign this legislation.
The CBO claims that the “big, beautiful” bill will add to our national debt by at least $3.3 trillion. Republicans don’t like this prediction and they claim the CBO (the official referee) underestimates the growth in our economy. During his first term, Trump predicted his economic plans would not add to the debt. He was very wrong. His supporters seem to forget that Trump increased the national debt by $7.8 trillion during his first administration (the highest jump in any four-year term).
There are major changes in health care, especially in Medicaid and “Obamacare”. The CBO predicts that 13 million Americans would no longer have health insurance. Here again, Republicans don’t like these figures and they claim the CBO is “wrong”

Food stamps (the SNAP program) currently serves one-in-eight Americans each month. This bill would cut $230 billion over ten years, literally taking food out of people’s mouths.
Some of the provisions of the bill do help low wage earners (for example, no taxes on tips). Nevertheless, these are mere “crumbs” compared with the lavish deductions given to the very rich.

As I affirmed at the beginning of this post, budget bills are moral documents that should be evaluated by their (estimated) consequences. I choose to use the criteria taught by Jesus: What happens to the “least of these” among us? According to his standards, this bill does not seem very beautiful. In fact, it is quite ugly.

Walmart Exposes Trump’s Big Tariff Lie: “Foreign Countries Will Pay The Tariffs”

Economists and ordinary citizens agree that Trump’s tariffs are taxes paid to the US government by US retailers who then pass on these tax costs to US consumers in the form of higher prices. No mechanism exists for foreign countries to pay these tariffs. Nevertheless, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that foreign nations will pay for the tariffs. Just yesterday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary told reporters that Trump “maintains the position that foreign countries absorb these tariffs.” All Americans know this is a lie. The recent exchange between the president and Walmart officials clearly demonstrate that it is a lie.

Last week, Doug McMillon, the chief executive of Walmart, said that the large retail company would be forced to raise the prices later this month on many of the products they sell. He affirmed that Walmart could no longer absorb all the tariffs imposed on foreign imports. They would be forced to pass on these higher costs to their customers. Immediately Trump berated Walmart on social media. On Saturday he posted that Walmart should “EAT THE TARIFFS” and not pass on these higher expenses to their customers in the form of higher prices. His own words reveal his lies. He does not say here that foreign countries should pay the tariffs. He knows they cannot do so.

His command to Walmart is unbelievable at a much deeper level. He has repeatedly railed against socialist governments (and others) for interfering in the “free markets” of capitalism. But this is precisely what he is doing. As the main spokesperson for the federal government, he is trying to tell a private company how to run their business. He is telling them to go against basic economic principles like the law of “supply and demand” and the “bottom line”. As far as I know, Trump is not accusing Walmart of violating any federal law. He just hates the fact that economic realists (like Walmart, Mattel, Target) are putting in plain view the insanity of his tariff policies. There might be moments (like hoarding necessities in the midst of great need) when public officials should urge companies to keep prices low. This is not that moment. Trump just wants to hide the truth about his unwise tariffs.

In unguarded moments, Trump himself has let the truth slip out of his mouth. Just last month, he was pressed by a reporter about possible empty shelves and higher prices in stores. Answering before he thought about his response, he acknowledged that “children might have two dolls instead of 30 dolls,” and that these dolls might “cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”

We are reminded in the Good Book that we will be judged by our words and by our actions. Judgment day might be coming this summer in the form of higher prices.

Da’ Pope: A Gringo Pope as an Antidote to the “Ugly American”

The political novel The Ugly American was published in 1958 by William Lederer and Eugene Burdick. Both authors were Navy veterans, and both were disillusioned by the content and style of U.S. diplomacy in Southeast Asia. They wanted to reshape diplomatic efforts by changing the conduct of North Americans who spent a lot of time overseas (military personnel, businesspeople, tourists, and others). They coined the phrase “the Ugly American”, which describes the typical North American overseas who does not learn the local language nor study the local culture. The ugliness is expressed in expecting/demanding that the nationals speak English with the American, even in their own country. The ugly American has little knowledge about the local culture or politics. The ugly American usually demonstrates an abundance of ethnocentrism and believes our “North American” way of doing things is always the best way. In summary, the ugly American is arrogant, disrespectful and unteachable. This novel had a significant impact in its day and is partially credited for the creation of the Peace Corps by President John F. Kennedy.

Fast forward seven decades. Last week, the Roman Catholic Conclave of Cardinals surprised almost everyone by officially selecting Cardinal Robert Prevost to become the new pope. Prevost immediately chose his new name, Pope Leo XIV. The surprise is the fact that he is the first U.S. citizen ever to be elected head of the Catholic Church. (Full disclosure: Although I am a follower of Jesus, I am not a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I do not ascribe to the special status that “popehood” holds for most Catholics, I do recognize his position as the spiritual and moral leader of 1.4 billion Catholics around the globe.) I suggest that the new pontiff might be a healthy contrast and antidote for the disease of the “ugly American”.

Although he was born and raised in Chicago (home of “Da’ Bears”), Prevost spent more than two decades of his adult life in the South American country of Peru. He served the poor as a priest in the city of Trujillo and in the rural areas that surround the city. He learned to speak fluent Spanish and the language of the indigenous people. He loved the people and respected them as “greater than himself”, and as a result was well beloved by them as a man of “goodness, grace, humility, mercy, and faith”. He even chose to become a Peruvian citizen (holding dual citizenship of both Peru and the United States. More recently, he has lived in Rome and served the church in many official capacities. He earned the respect of many Cardinals and overcame their understandable reluctance to elect an American as pope.

Prevost adopted the name Leo XIV, giving a nod to Leo XIII, the nineteenth century pope who defended in the encyclical Rerum Novarum “the rights of workers to a fair wage, safe working conditions, and the formation of trade unions, while affirming the rights to property and free enterprise, opposing both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.” It is likely that Prevost will generally continue the positions of Pope Francis.

From what I know of the new pope, he seems to be a sincere follower of Jesus who will set a good example of how not to be an “ugly American”.