ARGUING YES
Economist and Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute
ARGUING NO
Economist and Director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation
MODERATOR
Host and Moderator-in-Chief
This week:
- New episode: Will the One Big, Beautiful Bill help or hurt America?
- Your Sunday reading list
The Big, Beautiful Bill. Everyone is talking about it. Democrats despise it.
So, we bring you a timely episode about where the conversation is becoming very interesting: a fierce debate between two thoughtful conservatives who deeply part ways when it comes to the bill.
Our guests know and respect one another, and even worked together for a time, yet they square off over whether this bill is a bold pro-growth vision or a $5 trillion ticking time bomb.
Jessica Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who is opposed to the bill, argues that the U.S. is already drowning in red ink: $1.8 trillion annual deficits, debt at 100% of GDP and climbing, and interest costs projected to hit $2 trillion a year, swallowing nearly a third of federal tax revenue. Instead of tackling the crisis, she says this bill pours fuel on the fire and that the bill could backfire, raise interest rates, and shrink the economy.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an economist with the Heritage Foundation, is a full-throated defender of the bill and says it isn’t about debt— it’s about growth. She argues the economy can’t recover from Biden-era taxes and regulations without it. Besides locking in Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, she says it is a pro-worker, pro-business playbook designed to spark investment, create jobs, and fuel the kind of growth that makes future debt manageable.
But there’s more.
This thought-provoking discussion goes deeper — compelling points are made on both sides about Medicaid, immigration, and other aspects of the bill, as well as the process itself.
This bill didn’t just pass on party lines; it used the reconciliation process in a way that some argue went beyond the lines, including policy changes that were only tangentially related to the federal budget. Using the reconciliation process also allowed lawmakers to pass the bill without the 60-vote threshold usually needed to overcome a filibuster.
Critics argue this creates a precarious precedent that could be abused by future majorities — both Democratic and Republican — allowing them to jam through expensive priorities without offsets. As one guest questioner from NBC News puts it, “If we’re going to use reconciliation this way, why pretend the filibuster even matters anymore?”
Supporters say reconciliation exists for a reason, to enable Congress to make tough fiscal decisions without gridlock, and point to other bills that were created in a similar way.
It’s a fascinating discussion. Take a listen, and as always, let us know what you think.
More soon,
Lia Matthow
Chief Content Officer
POINT/COUNTERPOINT
Is the Big, Beautiful Bill a Disaster?
YES: Jessica Riedl
“We are told that letting the [Trump tax cuts] expire would’ve been a disaster. Fine, but what about piling on expensive clutter, like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime and no taxes on car loan interest payments? What about expensive bailouts for seniors and farmers? What about quadrupling the state and local tax deduction instead of offsetting the necessary parts of the [tax cuts] extension? Congress stuffed the bill with special interest carve outs and giveaways until the likely cost exceeds $5 trillion over the decade.”
NO: Diana Furchtgott-Roth
“The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act is about growth and not about debt. That is the correct order. America faced economic decline from the Biden approach of higher taxes, more regulation, and more spending. They weren’t even going to allow you to choose your own car or your own stove, just as they took away your light bulbs. The Trump solution is first to get the economy growing and slow spending when possible.”
WEEKLY POINTS OF VIEW
Batya Ungar-Sargon | July 9, 2025
UnHerd
Watch Batya’s debate on whether the New York Times has lost its way
The Grip That Race and Identity Have on My Students
Thomas Chatterton Williams | July 8, 2025
The New York Times
Watch Thomas’s debate on whether identity politics could help Democrats engage men
Good-Bye to All That: I Am Closing My Gallery and Returning to Collecting
Adam Lindemann | July 9, 2025
Artnet
Watch Adam’s debate on whether the art market is less ethical than the stock market
Finding a successful strategy for managing the UK-US relationship in the Trump era
Kori Schake and Caleb Dixon | July 9, 2025
Council on Geostrategy
Watch Kori’s debate on whether the U.S. should ban TikTok
Dems Must Really Fix Medicaid, Not Just Undo Trump’s Damage to It
Ezekiel Emanuel | July 9, 2025
The Bulwark
Watch Ezekiel’s debate on whether the U.S. healthcare system is terminally broken
Support the Power of Debate
At Open to Debate, we believe society grows stronger when we listen, especially to those we don’t agree with. Bringing two sides together isn’t just about disagreement; it’s about understanding, learning, and building a better, stronger democracy. In a time of deep divides, your donation helps keep this essential exchange of ideas alive — donate today.