It looks like @brendanvduke.bsky.social can add "noted WSJ Wife Guy" to his bio.

Me talking about the instability of the Trump tariff regime in the New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2026/02/20/u...

Trump's plan:

This remains true: if the tariffs are such a political and economic winner, Congress could legislate them and pass them immediately. That this is never discussed or even considered tells you a lot.

Literally the only good thing to happen to the CBO customs revenue analyst over the last twelve months is that SCOTUS waited until after the new CBO Budget and Economic Outlook to strike down the tariffs.

Me collecting FY2025 tariffs and reducing the FY2025 deficit: ha ha hell yeah. Me refunding FY2025 tariffs and increasing the FY2026 deficit: What the hell.

Fun discovery: on an apples-to-apples basis, Trump's tariff taxes are larger than the tax increases in the House-passed version of Build Back Better in 2021. Of course, the distribution of Biden's tax hikes on corporations and millionaires are different from Trump's tariffs.

Fun discovery: on an apples-to-apples basis, Trump's tariff taxes are larger than the tax increases in the House-passed version of Build Back Better in 2021. Of course, the distribution of Biden's tax hikes on corporations and millionaires are different from Trump's tariffs.

Thread. A year after Congress passed a massive reconciliation bill, budget expert @brendanvduke.bsky.social posts some notes from CBO’s budget and economic outlook. In brief: higher deficits, tariffs paid mostly by consumers, little impact on economic growth.

Incredible.

Today’s CBO report says US consumers pay 95% of tariffs. 🤡 @brendanvduke.bsky.social www.cbo.gov/system/files...

My updated list of estimates of the cost of the GOP megabill including its effects on growth including today's CBO estimate. Contrary to claims the law will produce such stupendous economic growth it will pay for itself, all independent estimates find it will cost trillions.

The money for immigration enforcement in the GOP megabill (including ICE and CBP) reduces the size of the workforce because of more immigration enforcement. That reduction in the number of workers is larger than the tiny increase in workers from Medicaid/SNAP requirements.

Wow. CBO estimates that U.S. consumers bear 95 PERCENT OF THE TRUMP TARIFFS. Basically, foreign firms bear 5% of them, U.S. companies bear 30% of them but other U.S. companies get to raise prices on consumers from less competition so that nets to zero. And consumers pay rest.

I'm excited to take on this new role at a time when CBPP’s unique combination of analysis, communications, & advocacy is more important than ever, & I’m grateful for Michele’s partnership in spearheading the organization’s communications efforts.

A motivation behind the GOP megabill was increasing investment incentives by cutting taxes--partially financed with higher deficits. But a problem with that theory in the current macroeconomic environment, higher interest rates wipe away ~half of those incentive benefits.

CBO is out with its newest budget and economic outlook. One key thing that stands out is they say that US consumers will bear 95% of tariffs, with US businesses bearing 0% on net and foreign businesses bearing 5%. www.cbo.gov/publication/...

Ah yeah, this is the good stuff! Here's my version, going back to 1792, that instead excludes years w/ major wars and the Great Depression, the Great Recession (+recovery), and the COVID-19 recession (+recovery). We should note that the 2.1% assumes tariff revenues stay forever, which they won't.

NEW: the U.S. Congressional Budget Office has posted its budget and economic outlook--the first full one we've had in a year so the first one reflecting One Big Beautiful Bill and the Trump tariffs. Going to post observations as I move through it. 🧵 www.cbo.gov/publication/...

The deficit has fallen relatively quickly in the first four months of fiscal year 2026 (October-January) compared to 2025. $152B in nominal deficit reduction or 20%, but $91B of that (60 percent) is a result of Trump's regressive, legally questionable tariffs.

Saying that this was needed since the 2017 tax cuts would expire is rich, given that this same Congress allowed the ACA premium tax credits to expire - credits that would benefit 22M households.

The megabill is also deeply fiscally irresponsible. Proponents say this was needed because the 2017 tax cuts would expire, but this is MORE than extending all the tax cuts even for millionaires without cuts to SNAP/Medicaid. And far more than extending for most families.

Riffing off Brendan's method of juxtaposition in this awesome report, I'd like to offer another comparison: Food assistance cuts versus new funding for DHS in the "Big Beautiful Bill" Republicans cut food assistance by $187 billion while providing $191 billion in funding for DHS

Some great posts in this thread (with graphs!) to show what an utter dumpster fire that OBBB has been--and how effective it has been as a means to siphon even more wealth to the .001%'ers.

Must we keep repeating your treatment of VP Gore? Must we? Green equals economic growth (just in case saving the world isn't enough for you). And about those Dems? We had solar panels on the White House Roof in 1976. Reagan ripped them down.

Our ACA subsidies went directly to tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. ACA subsidies bolster the healthcare market, create spend, economic opportunity. Tax cuts for the wealthy increase HOARDING. Think of it as Republicans choose effing dragons over the townspeople.

The harmful Republican megabill redistributes trillions of dollars to the wealthiest households, while making it harder for families and communities with low and moderate incomes to afford food, health care, and other basic needs. More from @brendanvduke.bsky.social: www.cbpp.org/research/fed...

Killer report on why the "Big Beautiful Bill" was a disaster from Brendan (whom I yell at to post more on Bluesky about 3 times a week). When I worked at OMB, Brendan had basically the same job at NEC. Tons and tons of great stuff here.

The paper--which is intended as a one stop shop of @centeronbudget.bsky.social's analysis of the bill--is available here: www.cbpp.org/research/fed...

Proponents of the megabill argue that these costs are overstated because they don't take into account economic growth. But all of the independent estimates of the bill's cost--including right-leaning ones--suggest it will cost trillions after accounting for growth.

To hide the megabill's poor choices, proponents of highlighted a slew of populist sounding "no tax on" breaks in the bill. These tax breaks are not just poorly designed, but also only a minor part of the bill. They are far smaller than the tax cuts for the top 1% for example.

An example of the poor choices in the megabill: they expanded the amount of state and local taxes affluent households can deduct from $10k to $40k. This came at a cost of $140B--about 75 percent of the cut to SNAP that make low-income families pay more for groceries.

So why write a bill that will hurt so many Americans? The answer is to partially finance tax cuts for the richest Americans including cuts to the estate tax, a deduction for business owners, corporate tax breaks, and more:

At a time when Americans are feeling squeezed by growing energy costs, the GOP megabill will raise energy costs by cutting investments expanding energy supply. Estimates from @jessejenkins.bsky.social, Jamil Farbes and Ben Haley suggest that this will eventually raise HH energy bills 13%.

Part of the megabill receiving less attention is changes to student loan repayment for low-income borrowers (esp. folks who didn't finish degrees). For first time someone w/ earnings below poverty line will have to make payments, helping offset tax cuts tilted to the wealthy.

The megabill also makes a 20%+ cut to SNAP by 2034 by forcing states to should the cost of SNAP for the first time, trapping families in red tape through work requirements, and more.

Looking at the megabill's cuts to health care--which help finance its tax cuts--roughly 15 million people will lose health insurance because of its direct cuts or failure to extend the enhancements to the Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits.

Another view is taking seriously the Trump Admin's claim that regressive, economically destructive, and legally questionable tariffs offset the megabill's deficits. When we include those in the distribution, the bottom 70% is worse off from the bill according to @budgetlab.bsky.social:

A @budgetmodel.bsky.social analysis of the megabill's combination of tax cuts, cuts to programs, and higher deficits will make the bottom 80 percent of kids born today worse off in the long run.

New 25-page @centeronbudget.bsky.social paper from me summarizing the distributional, fiscal, and economic effects of One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts and cuts to health care, food assistance, student loans, and climate investments. 🧵 www.cbpp.org/research/fed...

New 25-page @centeronbudget.bsky.social paper from me summarizing the distributional, fiscal, and economic effects of One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts and cuts to health care, food assistance, student loans, and climate investments. 🧵 www.cbpp.org/research/fed...

If a lapse in DHS funding dragged on, problems would mount including delays in pay – but there is no reason for a lapse to be long-lived if policymakers get to work on addressing the need for guardrails to protect people’s basic rights and safety.

The Admin’s lapse plan also shows that about 95% of Coast Guard employees stay on the job if funding lapses.

Take FEMA. Its work providing disaster aid through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) continues & 84% of all FEMA staff continue to work during a lapse, according to the admin’s lapse plan. There was more than $20B in the DRF at the end of December.

Second, if the DHS funding bill lapses, there are unlikely to be serious issues in the near term. Many agencies within DHS have funds still available to them, and much of DHS's work continues during a funding lapse.

First, there is no sound reason for Congress not to pass the 5 funding bills that continue to have bipartisan, bicameral support. The Senate should pass those bills & the House should cut short its break and do the same.

Reworking the DHS funding bill to better protect public safety does not need to cause major harm within DHS or the government agencies covered by the other 5 funding bills, *if* Rs are prepared to govern responsibly. Claims to the contrary are an admission of sorts.

Calls to split the DHS funding from the current 6-bill minibus aren’t calls for a shutdown. The other 5 bills+ the already enacted bills provide 95%+ of total discretionary $. The other 5 bills have solid bipartisan support in both houses & should move on their own.

Undertaking a sweeping investigation of almost all federal funding to 14 states & D.C. – all but one led by a Democrat – is a harmful & shameful escalation of the Admin’s corrupt politicization of basic governance & suggests funding freezes may be coming. www.cnn.com/2026/01/22/p...

We can invest in people and communities and reject hate and discrimination. www.cbpp.org/research/fed...