On July 1st, local time, the U.S. Senate passed a comprehensive tax reduction and spending bill and submitted it to the House of Representatives. Trump urged the House to pass the “big and beautiful” bill by July 4th.
The day before, Musk posted dozens of tweets criticizing the bill and stated that if the bill is passed, it will lead to the establishment of an “American Party” the next day.
Regarding the potential escalation of the U.S. debt crisis due to the bill, Trump once again “criticized” Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, stating that the Fed should lower interest rates as soon as possible to 1%.
51-50 Differences Prominent
On the morning of July 1st, the U.S. Senate passed the comprehensive tax reduction and spending bill proposed by President Trump with a vote of 51 to 50. During this period, senators voted on dozens of proposed legislative amendments. It was reported that three Republican senators “turned against” the final bill.
As the Vice President of the Senate, Republican Senator Mike Johnson cast a “breakthrough” vote in a tie-breaking vote with 50 votes in favor and 50 against, passing the amendment with a vote of 51 to 50.
House Speaker Mike Johnson stated that he would strive to pass the bill before Trump’s set deadline of July 4th.
Musk: The “Big and Beautiful” Bill Passes
On June 30th, Musk once again fiercely criticized the so-called “Big and Beautiful” tax and spending bill pushed by Trump, posting dozens of tweets saying those supporting the bill should feel ashamed. He stated that if the bill is passed, it will lead to the establishment of an “American Party” the next day. On social media, he wrote: “If this insane spending bill is approved, ‘American Party’ will be established the next day.” He also said that the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States pretend to be two separate parties, but “in reality, it is just one ‘single party’. The United States needs alternative choices.”
Threats to Defeat Supporters of the “Big and Beautiful” Bill
Additionally, Musk has pinned a post on his platform, stating, “Any Congress member who promises to cut government spending during an election but votes for the largest debt increase bill in history will be featured on posters during the party’s primary elections next year.” The poster features Pinocchio, with a prominent “liar” label.
Trump Considers Firing Musk
On the morning of July 1st, when asked if he would fire Musk, Trump said, “Let’s think about it,” suggesting that perhaps the “Government Efficiency Department,” which could potentially bite its own tail, should handle Musk. He also emphasized that Musk had “taken a lot of government subsidies.” Trump suggested that the “Government Efficiency Department” would keep an eye on Musk, saving them a significant amount of money, and stated that Musk “should not play this game with me.”
In the early hours of the same day, President Trump posted on social media saying that Musk “may have received more government subsidies than anyone in history, and without these subsidies, he might have had to shut down his business and return to South Africa.” Trump also suggested that the Government Efficiency Department should thoroughly investigate how much subsidy money Musk’s company received.
The “Big and Beautiful” Bill May Be Related to Musk’s Interests
Recently, Musk has repeatedly criticized the “Big and Beautiful” bill. In an interview with Fox News on June 29th, Trump hinted at Musk’s dissatisfaction stemming from the proposal to cancel the tax credit for electric vehicle consumers, which impacted Musk’s interests as CEO of Tesla, a major electric vehicle manufacturer.
Fox News:
Why is he frustrated? Is it because he didn’t get what he wanted?
Regarding the mandatory policy for electric vehicles (the cancellation of the tax credit), it’s difficult for him.
You know, I don’t want everyone to own an electric car.
According to CNN, Tesla’s sales have significantly declined this year, necessitating the continuation of tax credit policies to maintain market demand. Morgan Stanley previously estimated that if the tax credit policy were abolished, Tesla would lose about $12 billion annually.
The “Bigger and Better” Act fuels the fire
Despite the so-called “Bigger and Better” Act containing spending reduction measures, budget agencies and economists in the United States generally believe that these measures are unlikely to effectively offset the revenue loss brought about by tax cuts and other policies, as well as the increase in defense spending, which is expected to significantly elevate federal debt. The New York Times recently pointed out, “The problem with U.S. Treasury bonds is far more severe than people realize,” and the “Bigger and Better” Act will exacerbate this issue.
Taking 2024 as an example, the annual interest expense on the U.S. federal debt has exceeded the annual military expenditure, roughly equivalent to the annual expenses of federal health insurance. This amount is greater than any other expenditure by the U.S. government, except for social security, and the “Bigger and Better” Act will further indulge in this wasteful spending. The Congressional Budget Office stated that the House version of the “Bigger and Better” Act will add an average of $55 billion in debt interest payments over the next decade, with actual expenditures possibly higher than the House version.
Moreover, the “Bigger and Better” Act primarily provides tax relief for the wealthiest Americans while significantly reducing healthcare and other social welfare benefits for low-income families. The article quotes estimates from the Congressional Budget Office stating that this bill would reduce income for the poorest American families by nearly 4%, while increasing income for the wealthiest American families by more than 2%. It contrasts sharply with the Robin Hood tradition of “robbing the rich to help the poor” in British folklore.
Maryland Democratic Senator Alvin Brooks:
President Trump claims to be fighting for the working class, yet the bill before us cuts taxes for the top 1%. The source of this funding is a reduction in programs that serve hardworking Americans such as medical assistance and food stamps. So, I ask, are you wanting community hospitals or are you building mansions for billionaires?
Trump Slams Powell Again
On June 30th local time, President Trump once again slammed Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, stating that the Fed should cut interest rates as soon as possible to 1%.
In a social media post, President Trump said, “Mr. Lately, Chairman Powell of the Federal Reserve and the entire committee should feel ashamed for not cutting rates.”
“If the Fed works hard, the United States could save tens of trillions of dollars in interest costs,” Trump stated.
He suggested that the United States should keep interest rates at 1%.
White House Press Secretary LaVelle also read out a handwritten letter from Trump to Powell during the meeting.
White House Press Secretary LaVelle:
The letter read, “Jerome Powell, your consistently slow response has cost the United States dearly and continues to do so. You should significantly lower interest rates, as trillions of dollars are flowing away.”
In the letter, Trump specifically marked that the Fed should maintain interest rates around 1%.
The minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) monetary policy meeting on June 18th showed that the Fed decided to keep the federal funds rate target range unchanged at 4.25% to 4.50%, marking the fourth consecutive time the Fed has kept its rates unchanged.
Since taking office, Trump has publicly criticized Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell multiple times, demanding him to make a decision on interest rate cuts soon and even suggesting announcing the new Fed chairman early to put pressure on Powell.
美政府此举实为缓解债务压力 推卸责任
中国人民大学国际关系学院教授 刁大明：
特朗普对鲍威尔施压要求降息，很显然是希望美联储能够配合特朗普政府自身的经济贸易政策，一方面目前我们知道美国政府可谓是债台高筑，联邦债务利息每年超过六千亿美元，那这个时候如果降息的话，可以暂时缓解相关的债务压力。
另一方面，美国特朗普政府目前对主要的贸易伙伴都展开了关税战，此举无疑增加了美国普通消费者的负担，导致美国自身消费疲软，通货膨胀加剧，这个时候如果降息，可能有助于缓解相关的负面效应。
特朗普反复强调美联储因为不降息而负有责任，这实际上也是将美国经济不理想的责任归结于他人，从自己身上转嫁给美联储，是一种自身推卸责任的政治算计。
但是到目前为止，美联储都没有跟随特朗普的政策方向，也凸显了对特朗普政府相关经济、贸易，财政政策的这种不认同。