A Few Mildly Encouraging Things About OBBB

 

Clearly, the One Bad, Bonkers Bill can't be considered good by any definition of the term.  But there are some things about it that could be worse.  Horrible though the policy is, and the rushed execution, there are a few things that might seem reassuring.

Consider:

The original version did not set Medicaid cuts to begin until 2029.  This means that Republicans anticipated that there would be a free and fair election in 2028 that a Democrat might win.  It might not be too much of a stretch to say they welcomed a Democrat winning so they could escape the blame.

Current Medicaid cuts take effect after the 2026 election.  That means that Republicans expect a free and fair 2026 election, or at least that they might lose their seats for cutting people's benefits.

Republican Senators deferred to the Senate Parliamentarian.  When she stripped out provisions as violating the filibuster rule, they accepted her judgment and refused calls to fire her.  The one exception was that they treated the existing revenue as baseline, which shocked Washington watchers, but seems to me a non-crazy way of doing things.*  The means Republican Senators think there could be a future government with Democrats controlling the White House and the House and at least 50 Senate seats and so they want to protect the filibuster.

Donald Trump threatened Thom Tillis with a primary challenge if he opposed the bill.  Tillis decided not to seek re-election.  Threatening one's political opponents with a primary challenge is, of course, completely legal and well within accepted norms of American politics.  Tillis, having decided not to run again, now feels free to speak freely.  Neither Thomas Massie nor Rand Paul show any fear of Donald Trump either.  Given rumors that Trump was keeping his caucus in line, not just with threats of primary challenges, but with physical threats by violent supporters, this is reassuringly normal.

Speaking of the Senate Parliamentarian, she removed a provision that would have prevented courts from enjoining government actions.  She also removed a provision limiting judges ability to hold defiant officials in contempt.  I will admit I never considered that provision quite as dangerous, since it is not clear to me that contempt proceedings have played any significant role in whether officials obey court orders, but it is nice to have.

The ban on artificial intelligence regulation was also removed, and by a 99-1 vote, no less!

A provision allowing the IRS to unilaterally declare any non-profit a supporter of terrorism and shut it down was rejected.  I don't know for sure, but it was possible the fear that a Democrat might be President some day have have this power may have played a part.

A proposal to increase taxes on charitable foundations was also rejected.  Republicans have insisted for a long time that government is too powerful and that everyone is too dependent on government money.  Given the rampage Trump has been on, many of his opponents have begun to agree.  The original House version sought to make it harder for even private charity to step in where government stepped out.  The Senate removed this provision.

In generally, the impact of the provisions will grow over time.  This will give time for public outcry to build and the most damaging provisions to be reversed.

In short, what ultimately passed is a horribly bad set of policies.  But at least the parts of it that threatened democracy were taken out.  Except for the very most dangerous one.  The expansion of ICE.

_______________________________________
*Aside from the craziness of the entire procedure of requiring a 60-vote super-majority and treating a simple majority as a radical action.