The Curse of The Big Beautiful Tax Bill

May 22, 2025: The Big Beautiful Tax Bill Passes The House of Representatives and soon afterwards comes The Day the Future Was Mortgaged

The year 2025 dawned with a palpable sense of unease. Political polarization was at an all-time high, and the nation was hungry for a solution, any solution, to its myriad problems. Amidst this volatile climate, a new piece of legislation began to gain traction: the “Prosperity & Progress Act,” swiftly rebranded by its proponents as “The Big Beautiful Tax Bill.” Its name alone was a stroke of marketing genius, conjuring images of boundless wealth and a golden age for America.

Championed by a charismatic, newly elected administration and a coalition of desperate legislators, the bill promised everything to everyone. It proposed universal basic income for all citizens, massive infrastructure projects that would “rebuild America from the ground up,” unprecedented investments in green energy, and a sweeping overhaul of the healthcare system—all funded, its architects claimed, by “innovative new revenue streams” and “strategic fiscal reallocation.” In reality, these “streams” were little more than a thin veneer over a mountain of future debt, masked by optimistic projections and the fervent belief that unprecedented growth would magically materialize to cover the costs.

The debates were fierce, but the public, weary of austerity and endless partisan squabbles, was swayed by the promise of a brighter tomorrow. On May 18, 2025, after a grueling, televised all-night session, “The Big Beautiful Tax Bill” passed. Cheers erupted in the chambers, headlines screamed of a new era, and for a brief, intoxicating period, it felt like the nation had truly turned a corner.

The Golden Illusion: 2025-2030

For the first few years, the illusion held. Money flowed. Bridges were built, solar farms sprouted across the landscape, and millions received their monthly UBI payments, stimulating consumer spending. The economy, fueled by this massive injection of capital, surged. Unemployment plummeted. The architects of the bill were hailed as visionaries, and their political capital soared. Critics who warned of the long-term debt were dismissed as doomsayers, out of touch with the “new American prosperity.”

But beneath the surface, a cancerous growth was forming. The “innovative revenue streams” proved insufficient, the “strategic reallocations” were accounting tricks, and the promised exponential growth never quite materialized to the degree required. The national debt, already substantial, began to balloon at an alarming rate, not just in raw numbers, but as a percentage of GDP. Interest payments, once a manageable line item, started to consume an ever-larger slice of the annual budget.

The Slow Choke: 2035-2045

By 2035, the cracks began to show. The initial euphoria had faded, replaced by a nagging sense of unease. The UBI payments, while still popular, were now barely keeping pace with inflation, which had been quietly eroding purchasing power. Infrastructure projects stalled mid-construction as funding dried up. The “green energy revolution” lost momentum.

Politicians, now facing the consequences of decisions made a decade prior, found themselves trapped. Any attempt to cut the popular programs initiated by the Big Beautiful Tax Bill was met with fierce public backlash. Raising taxes further would stifle an already struggling economy. The interest payments on the colossal debt became a ravenous beast, devouring more and more of the federal budget each year. Debates in Congress became circular, frantic arguments over how to pay for yesterday’s promises with today’s dwindling resources.

The Curse Manifests: 2045 and Beyond

By 2045, “The Big Beautiful Tax Bill” had become “The Curse.” No political party, regardless of ideology, could craft a working, useful budget. The sheer weight of future debt payments—the principal, the compounding interest, the contractual obligations—had become an insurmountable burden.

Imagine the scene: a new administration, fresh with promises of reform, sits down to draft its first budget. They stare at the numbers, their faces paling. Before a single new initiative can be proposed, before a single dollar can be allocated to education, defense, scientific research, or even basic maintenance, a staggering percentage of the national income is already earmarked for debt servicing. It’s like trying to build a house when the foundation is already crumbling under a mountain of previous construction debris.

Essential services withered. Roads crumbled, schools lacked resources, and the military struggled to maintain its aging equipment. Innovation, once a hallmark of American ingenuity, stagnated as funding for research and development dried up. Social programs, once expanded by the Big Beautiful Tax Bill, were now barely sustained, leading to widespread discontent and social unrest. International standing eroded as the nation became consumed by its internal financial paralysis.

The political landscape became a perpetual stalemate. Every proposed budget was a zero-sum game, a desperate scramble to cut from one vital area to fund another, all while the debt beast grew fatter. The very act of governing became an exercise in managing decline, a constant triage of national priorities. No grand visions, no ambitious projects, no meaningful investments in the future were possible. The nation was effectively bankrupt, not in the traditional sense, but in its capacity to act, to lead, to even meaningfully plan.

The Big Beautiful Tax Bill, passed with such fanfare and hope in 2025, had indeed created a legacy. But it wasn’t one of prosperity. It was a curse, a fiscal straitjacket that bound future generations, ensuring that no matter who held power, the nation would forever be paying for a past that had promised beauty but delivered only an unbearable, crushing weight. The future, once bright with possibility, had been mortgaged away, leaving only the bitter taste of regret and the enduring, silent hum of a debt that could never truly be repaid.

The U.S. House of Representatives today, May 22, 2025, passed H.R. 1, commonly referred to as “The One, Big, Beautiful Bill” or “Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill.” While proponents highlight its tax cuts and economic growth initiatives, critics and independent analyses point to several significant negative aspects:

1. Substantial Increase in Federal Deficit and National Debt:

• Projected Debt Increase: The most frequently cited concern is the bill’s projected impact on the federal budget. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the tax provisions of the bill would increase the federal deficit by approximately $3.775 trillion to $3.8 trillion over the next decade (2025-2034).
• Revenue Reduction: Analyses suggest the bill would lead to a significant reduction in federal tax revenue, with estimates ranging from $3.3 trillion to over $4 trillion over ten years. This increased borrowing is expected to lead to higher interest payments on the national debt, particularly to foreign creditors.

2. Disproportionate Benefits and Income Inequality:

• Wealthy Households Benefit Most: Critics argue that the bill is structured to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest households and large corporations. The CBO’s analysis indicates that the bill would reduce income for the poorest 10 percent of U.S. households while boosting income for the top 10 percent.
• Limited Impact on Overall American Incomes: Despite claims of increased take-home pay for families and workers, some economic models suggest that overall American incomes, as measured by Gross National Product (GNP), would barely rise. This is because the increased budget deficit and subsequent interest payments on debt held by foreign entities would offset some of the domestic economic gains.

3. Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs:

• Medicaid Reductions: The bill includes nearly $800 billion in reduced spending for Medicaid, the government’s health insurance program for low-income households. This is achieved through:
  • New “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education, or service for able-bodied adults without dependents, effective January 1, 2029.
  • A requirement for individuals to verify their eligibility for the program twice a year, instead of once.
  • A new rule disqualifying applicants if they own a home valued at more than $1 million.
  • Penalties for states that choose to expand Medicaid in the future.
  • These changes are estimated to result in 8.6 million fewer people having healthcare coverage.
• SNAP Food Aid Changes: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) also faces significant changes:
  • States would be required to shoulder 5% of benefit costs (starting in fiscal year 2028) and 75% of administrative costs, a substantial increase from current levels where states pay none of the benefit costs and half of the administrative costs.
  • Work requirements are tightened, with exemptions for parents caring for a dependent child only applying if the child is under the age of 7 (currently, the exemption applies until the child is 18).
  • These changes are projected to lead to 3 million fewer people receiving SNAP food stamp benefits each month.

4. Temporary vs. Permanent Tax Provisions and Increased Complexity:

• Misaligned Priorities: While the bill makes many individual income tax cuts permanent, some key pro-investment business tax provisions, such as 100% bonus depreciation for short-lived assets and immediate expensing for domestic research and development (R&D) expenditures, are only temporarily restored (through 2029). Critics argue this prioritizes consumption over long-term economic growth and investment.
• Added Complexity: The introduction of numerous temporary tax breaks, including new deductions for tips, overtime pay, and auto loan interest, is seen by some as cluttering the tax code and adding unnecessary complexity, rather than simplifying it.

5. Loosening of Firearm Regulations:

• The bill removes silencers from the definition of “firearm” under federal law and sets the transfer tax rate on silencers at zero.

6. Repeal or Phaseout of Green Energy Incentives:

• The legislation eliminates several green-energy incentives introduced by the previous administration and accelerates the phaseout of most clean energy tax credits, with many individual energy credits terminated. It also terminates credit transferability within approximately two years.

This provision, included in the “Big Beautiful Tax Bill,” refers to a significant change in how firearm silencers (also known as suppressors) are regulated under federal law.

Here’s what it means:

• Removes Silencers from “Firearm” Definition: Currently, under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, silencers are classified as “firearms” along with other heavily regulated items like machine guns, short-barreled rifles, and destructive devices. This classification subjects them to a stringent federal registration process, extensive background checks (including fingerprinting and a lengthy waiting period), and strict transfer regulations. If this bill passes, silencers would no longer be subject to these specific, more restrictive NFA regulations.
• Sets Transfer Tax Rate to Zero: Under current NFA regulations, transferring a silencer from one individual to another (or from a manufacturer to an individual, or a dealer to an individual) incurs a federal $200 transfer tax. This provision would eliminate that tax, making them cheaper to acquire.

In essence, this change would largely deregulate silencers at the federal level, making them much easier, faster, and less expensive for individuals to purchase and possess. They would still likely be subject to state-specific laws and general firearm background check procedures that apply to non-NFA firearms, but the unique federal hurdles of the NFA would be removed for silencers.

You’ve hit on a core point of contention regarding the deregulation of silencers. There are strong arguments on both sides of whether making them easier to acquire would increase their use by criminals.

Arguments that it would make it easier for criminals and increase risk:

• Reduced Detectability: The primary concern from law enforcement and gun control advocates is that silencers, while not making a firearm “silent,” significantly reduce the sound of gunfire. This makes it harder for bystanders to recognize gunshots, for law enforcement to locate a shooter, and for gunshot detection systems (like Shotspotter) to be effective. In a mass shooting or active shooter scenario, this could delay response times and increase casualties.
• Enhanced Criminal Advantage: By masking the sound and muzzle flash, silencers could give criminals an advantage, allowing them to carry out attacks more discreetly and potentially escape before police are alerted or can pinpoint their location. This raises concerns about targeted assassinations and ambush attacks.
• Increased Accessibility: Removing the NFA’s strict regulations (registration, extensive background checks, and the $200 tax) would make silencers as easy to purchase as a standard firearm (subject to a regular background check, if applicable). This increased accessibility could lead to more silencers falling into the hands of individuals with criminal intent, either through legal purchase (if they pass a basic background check) or through theft or illegal straw purchases.
• Militarization of the Civilian Market: Critics argue that efforts to deregulate silencers are part of a broader trend to militarize the civilian firearm market, making accessories designed for combat more widely available to the public.

Arguments that it would not significantly increase criminal use (or that current regulations are ineffective):

• Rarely Used in Crime (Historically): Proponents of deregulation, citing data from agencies like the ATF, often argue that silencers are very rarely used in crimes, even under current regulations. Some reports indicate that only a tiny fraction of federal prosecutions or recovered crime scene firearms involve silencers. They suggest that the current NFA regulations have not been effective at stopping criminals from acquiring them, and that criminals who want them can already acquire or illegally manufacture them.
• Not Truly “Silent”: It’s emphasized that silencers do not make firearms “silent” like in movies. They reduce the noise to varying degrees, often still louder than unprotected human hearing can safely withstand. This means a gunshot with a silencer is still audible, just less distinct.
• Less Concealable: Silencers add length to a firearm, making them less concealable. For many criminals who prioritize discreet carrying, this is a significant disadvantage.
• Hearing Protection: A primary argument from gun rights advocates is that silencers are primarily a hearing safety device for lawful gun owners, hunters, and sport shooters, reducing noise pollution at shooting ranges and preventing hearing damage. They argue that restricting them harms responsible citizens.

Conclusion:

The debate boils down to differing views on risk and the effectiveness of current regulations. Those concerned about increased criminal use focus on the potential for reduced detectability and increased accessibility for individuals who intend harm. Those who argue against this concern point to historical data on low criminal use and emphasize the legitimate use of silencers for hearing protection and recreational shooting.

That’s a common and significant concern raised by opponents of deregulating silencers. The argument is that if silencers become easier and cheaper to obtain due to changes in federal law, it could lead to:

• Increased Use in Violent Crimes: The primary worry is that criminals could more readily acquire silencers, making it harder for witnesses to identify gunshots and for law enforcement to locate the source of gunfire, potentially delaying response times in active shooter or other violent incidents. This could give criminals an advantage in carrying out attacks and escaping apprehension.
• Facilitating Organized Crime: For criminal organizations, the reduced sound signature offered by silencers could be seen as advantageous for illicit activities, including targeted violence or intimidation, by minimizing attention.
• Reduced Effectiveness of Public Safety Measures: Gunshot detection systems (like ShotSpotter) rely on acoustic signatures. While silencers don’t make guns truly silent, they significantly alter these signatures, which could reduce the effectiveness of such systems in alerting authorities.

While proponents of deregulation often highlight that silencers are currently rarely used in crimes and are primarily for hearing protection, the concern you raise about potential increased criminal use is a central point of argument for those who advocate for stricter firearm regulations.

The provision to remove silencers from the definition of “firearm” under federal law and set the transfer tax rate to zero was championed by Representative Andrew Clyde (R-GA).

This particular measure is often referred to as the Concealed Handgun Permit Reciprocity Act (CHPA) or variations of legislation aimed at deregulating suppressors, such as the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) or the Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing (SHUSH) Act, which have been introduced in previous sessions and were incorporated into this larger bill.

Gun rights organizations like the Gun Owners of America (GOA) have also been actively lobbying for and applauding the inclusion of this provision.

The concern raised by opponents, however, is that while legally prohibited individuals would technically remain prohibited if someone cannot legally buy a Gun, deregulation would:

• Make it easier for “straw purchasers” to acquire silencers for criminals.
• Increase the overall availability of silencers, potentially making them more accessible on the illegal market through theft or diversion, even if direct legal purchase by prohibited persons remains impossible.
• The current NFA process, with its registration and long waits, is seen by some as a significant deterrent that makes it harder for prohibited individuals to get them. Removing those hurdles, they argue, increases overall risk.

CRIMINALS WIN BIG TIME!!!