In the political landscape defined by soundbits and slogans, few have landed in populist resonances like “big beautiful bills.” But behind the prosperity of the campaign is a modest set of proposals that, if enacted, can restructure the American welfare state, tax structure and social contracts.
At first glance, the bill offers what appears to be an epic bargain. It is a promise of vast support for working families, economic equity, and “restore dignity through prosperity.” The champion says he will reinvest in the middle and working class of America. Critics call it the Trojan horse for government overreach and unsustainable spending.
Regardless of the spin, the big beautiful bill represents a major readjustment of three cornerstone programs: tax, Medicare and SNAP (Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program). The bill proposes simplifying tax laws by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), increasing the child tax credit, and increasing the marginal tax rate for individuals above $400,000. At the same time, it closes various deductions and loopholes. In particular, it benefits private equity and multinational companies.
Although there is no particular wealth tax, the bill is closer to one by expanding awareness of capital gains for inherited assets (“stepping up on a base”) and expanding the IRS enforcement budget. Supporters say this is common sense tax fairness. Defenders see it as a quiet war against entrepreneurship and capital formation.
Tax law has always been more than just a fundraising mechanism, it is a mirror of national values. The bill presents a pivot from the supply-side thinking of the Reagan era towards redistribution as a fiscal philosophy. If passed, it is intended to support social provisions that could discourage risk-taking and long-term investments and undermine productivity gains. Under the bill, Medicare is a move with deep political support between older Gen Xers and late boomers, reducing eligibility age to 60, capping out-of-pocket costs. It also introduces dentistry, vision and hearing as the advantages of the length baseline proposed by progressives.
But it’s not all about expanding profits. The bill seeks to curb excess costs by negotiating prescription drug prices, enacting hospital reimbursement reforms and expanding fraud prevention programs. On paper, the net effect has been cost-neutral for 10 years. In practice, that assumption rests on a rosy projection of compliance, behavior and savings that rarely come to fruition in government programs. If Medicare becomes more generous without comparable structural reforms, the Trust Fund’s 2031 bankruptcy date could arrive faster than expected.
Snapoverhauls, perhaps the least discussed, are the ideologically transformative aspects of most of the bill. Rather than reducing dependency, the bill would restructure food aid as “labor benefits,” expand eligibility for part-time workers, and increase profits related to local cost-of-living indexes.
This is a departure from the Clintonian spirit of “welfare for welfare.” Critics argue that it could hinder labor participation in margins, especially in low-skilled sectors that struggle to attract workers. Others see food anxiety as a long-standing perception that it is not always a symptom of unemployment, but a symptom of unemployment and wage stagnation.
However, with annual SNAP spending already exceeding $120 billion, the proposed 20% increase will only add fuel to inflationary pressures and concerns about debt sustainability, by offsetting cuts elsewhere.
Ultimately, the big beautiful bill is not about economics, but about the crisis of modern American identity. Do we still believe in individual economic ups? Or institutionalizes permanent support mechanisms for classes that are increasingly priced from American dreams? It is the philosophical fork of roads, a managed economic model between free market models that praise growth and innovation, and by order, which seeks fairness. I promise dynamism. The other promises security.
But as history shows, society cannot promise both.
