The cloud of doom hangs over our heads.

Or not.

Depends entirely on who you’re listening to.

So – the Republican-majority government has passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” In it are provisions which promise to revitalize the country, or devastate it – again, it depends entirely on who you’re listening to, which echo chamber you’re currently subscribing to.

Fair warning: this is going to be a pretty long post. If you’re not interested in an overview of what’s actually in The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, skip to the “TL/DR” section at the bottom. You won’t be as well informed but you’ll get my take on a few important parts, which is only slightly more valid than some talking head you might be listening to, but only because I don’t conform to a particular narrative.

One of the tricks they use in the political process, to gain passage of legislation that might have objectionable provisions, is to overwhelm with raw verbiage. The literal size of legislation, the sheer number of pages, particularly “omnibus” spending legislation like this one. To be brutally honest, like most people I don’t have time to read through over 1,000 pages of legalese; it may not be much of one, but I do have a life. They count on that, you know – you remember when Nancy Pelosi (the patron saint of liberal Democrats) said the “Obamacare” bill should be passed before you read it? Funny how that tune changed when this enormous bill was introduced…

But there’s a nifty summary on the congressional website we can scan through. That, and various reporting (most of it one-sided, sure, but I read both perspectives), tells me that, despite the hysteria in the media, there are some good things, and some not-so-good things, in this legislation.

I’m not a big fan of government handouts (aka buying votes), but I do want to help people who actually need it. So, I’m not entirely comfortable cutting funding for food stamps (SNAP), but all in favor of holding the system accountable for waste and fraud. This bill is going to tighten eligibility requirements, which could be problematic for some low income families who actually do need assistance (which would not be good), and will require that states start contributing a portion of the funds paid to recipients, which may increase state taxes (also not good). But on the plus side it also requires the states to account for SNAP funds more closely than they’ve had to (if payment error rates exceed certain percentages, they’re required to contribute more into the fund). This one could be a double-edged sword, though; there’s nothing stopping the states from just increasing taxes instead of reducing spending or improving their accountability…

This legislation also extends protections and incentives for agriculture, agricultural exports, and modernization of our agricultural system. Including biofuel research and development, animal health, etc. While some of the “unobligated funds” associated with that funding has been eliminated, actual funding is increased for these programs. But the problems here, according to some of the material I’ve read, appear to be in the execution of these programs over the longer term; those “unobligated funds” apparently were helpful, because some experts are suggesting that, in total, the Act will decimate the small family farmer due to even higher operational costs, which are already making small-scale farming unprofitable – corporate megafarms, though, can absorb increased costs for longer periods.

And the recent layoffs and upcoming cuts to NOAA and National Weather Service funding are going to be detrimental to weather forecasting that farmers – particularly small-scale farmers – rely on day-to-day, to say nothing of the severe weather forecasting that might have saved some lives in Texas this past week, but will likely be absent during the next hurricane season.

Military spending is being increased, including for border protection (which should come as no surprise to anyone). And for space-based defense systems. And for modernization of military facilities, equipment, and weapons. It also requires detailed reports to Congress on how that money is being spent.

And referring to the military, I don’t see anything, anywhere in this legislation, about improvements to the Veteran’s Administration system to bring medical care for our veterans up to civilian standards. In fact, I’ve heard media reports about more cuts to the VA. Frankly, this shows a terrible disregard – a dismissal – of our veterans; if you’ve read my past posts, you know this is kind of a hot-button issue for me…

Eligibility requirements for federal student loans are changed; the language of the summary makes it pretty clear that people in this country illegally are not entitled to federal education assistance – or much of anything else. And that there are new, lower limits to the amount that can be borrowed through the federal system, and changes limiting how much and how often the student can default on their student loans. It also tightens the eligibility requirements for receiving Pell Grants – but increases funding for them.

There is extensive material regarding healthcare in this bill, and it will impact healthcare for low-income patients pretty hard. It funds development of a centralized database for states to check Medicare and Medicaid eligibility, and will require states to regularly confirm all Medicaid recipients are actually alive, but doesn’t change the eligibility requirements established by the Affordable Care Act. And it precludes states from instituting new or increasing Medicaid provider taxes. And, it allows the government to negotiate prescription drug prices, much the way other countries do. That’s not bad.

But there are a lot of politics involved here, and moral judgment that, frankly, has no place in government. Sure, it bans Medicare benefits to illegal aliens, penalizes states that haven’t already to put in place restrictions for Medicaid benefits to illegal aliens; this is part and parcel of this administration’s anti-immigrant policies (not all of which I disagree with, FYI). But the Act bans Medicaid funding for transgender treatments of any kind, even if health-related. It defunds Planned Parenthood (without naming them specifically); any “non-profit provider” who received more than $1 million in 2024 Medicaid funding (and PP is huge so they probably did), and whose main area is family planning/reproductive healthcare (which is what PP is all about), including abortions (although the Act makes allowances for rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life), is banned from receiving Medicaid funds for 10 years.

The Congressional Budget Office – which is non-partisan – estimates 11.8 million people will lose Medicaid coverage…

This all gives me a bad feeling; it feels wrong, morally and ethically. A lot of women have to rely on Planned Parenthood and the like for their pre-natal and post-natal care, so cutting Medicaid to family planning non-profits is not going to help these women have healthy children. Not only does the Act target abortion, but also contraceptive education and options; this is a step backwards, in my estimation. I continue to believe that healthcare decisions should be left to the doctor and patient, and not dictated by some suit, be it insurance adjuster or government flunky.

The Act establishes a work requirement for Medicaid recipients of 80 hours a month. A job, community service, enrollment in an educational program… It does allow for medical exceptions, though, and exceptions for dependent children. OK… All we need is part-time openings for them to fill, right?

This legislation increases the fees for entry into the US, and increases duties on imported goods. Duties are taxes on imported products, FYI, and they do increase consumer prices.

This is a doozy – courts are now unable to issue contempt citations for failing to comply with a court-ordered injunction or temporary restraining order, unless some “security is given” when the order was issued. This was, obviously, included to stop the courts from interfering with the execution of Presidential executive orders, which may or may not have been legal in the first place…

Environmental protections and research are gutted by this legislation; there’s really no other way to put it. Going forward, there is little or no federal funding for monitoring or researching pollution-related issues, and at the same time the Act increases oil, gas, and coal production. Habitat previously protected from oil and gas exploration has been reopened for exploitation, and protection for what little old-growth forest land we have left has been cut. Conservation and habitat restoration funding has been eliminated. National Park Service funding has been cut, although funds are being allocated for some wildfire prevention actions; it looks like they’re going to send volunteers into the woods to clear dry brush, or something.

But the bill funds a nice statuary park named the “National Garden of American Heroes.” And just so you know, the 250-some proposed statues run the gamut from John Adams to Coretta Scott King, from Douglas McArthur to Harper Lee, from Thurgood Marshal to Rosa Parks… And, no, our current President is NOT on the list. At least, not yet. They haven’t even decided where to put it – but they did pave over the famous White House rose garden this past week.

And apparently the space shuttle presently at the Smithsonian is going to be moved to Texas, and $85 million is earmarked for that. I don’t understand why that’s even happening… And it’s likely to cost 3 times that once all is said and done, since there’s no facility for it in Houston – and yet NASA’s budget is likely being cut.

If you own a hybrid or all-electric vehicle, this bill mandates an annual fee for highway maintenance. I’m not, actually, opposed to this since virtually all road maintenance funds come from taxes on gasoline, but electric vehicles do just as much wear and tear on the roads as gas-powered cars so really shouldn’t be exempt from road maintenance expenses.

There is a huge section on taxes in this legislation, too. Even the summary has summaries in this part… But some of it is good – temporarily increasing deductions for seniors and working families, for example, which should reduce taxes for many of us, particularly those of us receiving our Social Security benefits – but I don’t have the background to understand it fully. It does seem a recipe for the national debt to skyrocket, which we all know isn’t really a good thing (the Act also raised the national debt limit by $4 Trillion…).

I do note that most of the “clean energy” credits are eliminated (which is in keeping with the elimination of environmental programs), as is the IRS’s “Direct File” program, and it establishes several new tax brackets, the highest being 37% (the lowest is 10%). It makes permanent the tax cuts established during the first Trump term, too.

I’m pretty certain there are other, line-item issues, that the summaries have missed (after all, the summary is written by Congressional employees) but, like I said, it’s over 1,000 pages of legalese and I have chores. So…

TL/DR: This Act is certainly Big, but it’s anything but Beautiful. Any broken clock is right, twice a day, by which I mean that for all the doom and gloom in the media, there are positives in this omnibus bill that will benefit this country and its citizens.

Providing that the negatives don’t drag it back down again… Which is a distinct possibility – maybe even a probability; sadly, it appears to me that there are more negative impacts on our society than positives in this Act.

The positives: There is tax relief for seniors and working families (albeit temporary), it increases funding for some beneficial programs (including in education), there are some minor 2nd Amendment-related administrative improvements, and it demands accountability for the use of federal funds.

The negatives: Any concerns about the environment are now on the back-burner (if not disregarded entirely), entire segments of our population are having healthcare options reduced or eliminated (with a continued middle finger directed at our veterans), and actual scientific research in multiple areas is being cut (or eliminated entirely), all to the detriment of farmers, pretty much everyone’s healthcare, and emergency responders, among others.

I’m afraid that healthcare – particularly for low-income women – is taking a big step backward with this legislation. Yes, the entire healthcare system needs major reform, but this Act goes about it all wrong: if you want to reduce the number of abortions, you must increase access to contraceptive education and materials; it’s proven to work, and is cheaper in the long run. But this Act reduces access to both, most notably by defunding non-profit family planning, which many low-income women must rely on for pre- and post-natal care, which relegates them to conditions we had eliminated in the middle of the last century.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: medical decisions should be between doctor and patient, and some anonymous insurance or government suit should not make those decisions for them. And, yes, “reproductive care” is medical care, as is mental health care and treatment. And because the government has arranged it to make us rely on them to solve our problems, there is no other infrastructure to fall back on and many of those 11 or 12 million people being taken off Medicaid are now at risk.

Medicaid is a safety net, established for the people who cannot otherwise afford insurance and, therefore, regular healthcare, since our current healthcare system demands the patient have insurance to cover even the most basic care. If we were ever to resolve that dilemma, make basic healthcare affordable without insurance, there would not be much need for Medicaid…

I think they expect any tax revenue decreases to be offset by cost savings due to budget cuts to various programs, and loans made possible by the increased debt ceiling. In this layman’s opinion, this is not the recipe for economic success. I fear it’s most likely that these policies will mean increasing out-of-pocket costs for the majority of us, through higher consumer prices and increased healthcare costs that insurance will no longer be required to cover.

In fact, the aforementioned non-partisan Congressional Budget Office just released figures that show that the lowest income bracket will lose the most under the provisions of this Act: an average of $1,559 a year between now and 2034, half that for the next higher income tier. The upper-range incomes will wind up saving money under the Act; the more you make, the more you’ll save.

That’s not right, either.

Can the negatives be corrected? Sure – but it’ll take compromise and sober, critical thinking. And those attributes are non-existent in Washington, DC, or in your favorite, comfortable echo chamber.