June 19, 2025 • 14 mins
As the debate about President Trump’s tax bill — known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” — plays out among lawmakers in Washington, there’s been increasingly heated criticism of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. It calculates the costs and savings from the bill — including from the White House.
On today’s episode of the Big Take, host Saleha Mohsin sits down with CBO director Phillip Swagel to hear how his agency churns out economic forecasts from inside the center of a political storm.
Further listening: Stephen Miran Explains Why There’s No Secret Dollar Pact
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
There's been a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill in
Washington as lawmakers consider President Trump's tax bill, known as
the One Big Beautiful Bill. It's called the One Big
Beautiful Bill, and it will be the biggest bill ever
passed in our country's history. It passed the House in
May and is currently being considered by the Senate. In
the course of that process, last week, Treasury Secretary Scott
(00:32):
Bessant testified before the Senate Finance Committee. We appreciate you
being here with us, and you may proceed with your statement.
Thank you, Chairman Crapo, ranking Member Widen. Lawmakers had a
lot of questions, including what impact do it have on
the deficit and inflation?
Speaker 3 (00:47):
So you'll the Secretary of the Treasury, so I'm asking you,
what is your view? Will this bill increase or decrease
the guests?
Speaker 1 (00:54):
It is?
Speaker 2 (00:55):
But over several hours of testimony, one thing kept coming up.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
The non partisan CBO, Which is certain CBO is one
of our advisors. Are the same CBO that got it wrong?
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Then this is not the non partisan congressional budgets meant
from CBO, I believe is that all the fifteen million
people lose the health insurance. Well, your colleagues have a
fixation on CBO, and I.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
You're And it's not the first time the Congressional Budget
Office has been dragged into the spotlight. This non partisan
agency puts together projections and analyzes to help Congress determine
the impacts of a new budget or new legislation on
the economy. And this process brings out a fair share
of critics who don't like the math because it chips
away at support for the legislation. But this time around
(01:42):
is a little different, and you could hear that in
Besson's comments to the Senate Finance Committee.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
I am not attacking the people who work at the CBO, Sure,
I am attacking their methodology, and the methodology is completely illogical.
It assumes base.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
The rhetoric around CBO has been heating up. But as
the bill gets closer to passage, the agency has an
important job to do. And so there was one person
I really wanted to talk to, the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office himself, Philip Swagel.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
When our numbers go the way that someone wants, well,
then we're heroes. When the numbers go in the wrong way.
You know, we're just the opposite. And the thing about
the agency is that we're nonpartisan. Whatever the numbers are, well,
that's what we print, that's what we convey to policymakers.
That's our job.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I'm Saliah Mosen and this is the Big Take from
Bloomberg News Today. On the show, I sit down with
CBO director Phil Swagel to find out how his non
partisan federal agency focuses on economic forecasts when it's sitting
at the center of a political firestorm with Trump's tax
(02:53):
bill moving through Congress. I wanted to start by asking
Phil about the role of the Congressional Budget Office through
the life cycle of a piece of legislation like the
one Big Beautiful bill.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
So, as the Congress is considering that bill, we are
working with them from the very beginning really until the
very end. So at the very beginning the two chambers,
starting with the House, we're working on the budget resolution
and setting out the overall fiscal parameters on which the
bill is built. Then as the House considered the legislation,
(03:25):
we worked with the committees in the House as each
one developed their ideas on medicaid, on snap benefit, the
immigration policies, the Armed services, everything. We work back and
forth with the staff of the different committees as they
develop their ideas, and we're just giving them feedback. We're saying,
here's how much it costs, here's what we think it does,
(03:47):
and they fine tune it. Then we do a cost
estimate of the whole thing. And that's all for the House.
And now the Senate is taking up the bill, and
we're doing the same thing again with the Senate.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
What did you find from.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
The bill has a huge amount in it And if
you look on the CBO website, there's a cost estimate
for the bill that was passed by the House, and
it's actually a spreadsheet and is a spreadsheet with many tabs,
one tab for each committee and then a summary and
then within each tab there's a huge number of lines.
But it gives anyone listening, anyone who goes to our
(04:21):
website and gets the spreadsheet, it gives you an indication
of how sprawling the bill is. And it has both
tax policy, you know, both new provisions such as the
no tax on tips and then extensions of existing provisions
from the twenty seventeen Tax Act, and then it has
lots on the spending side, some healthcare policy snap benefits,
(04:41):
and much more so. There's lots in it. On the
tax side. Relative to current law, the tax policy increases
the deficit, and on the spending side, the changes that
were made in the legislation generally reduce the deficit. The
net of those two comes up to two point four
trillion dollars over ten years, and that's a deficit increase.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
So right now, what are your Republican critics taking issue with?
Speaker 1 (05:07):
I think the most salient criticism is that we the
CBO and our colleagues that Joint Committee on Taxation are
not optimistic enough on the growth impacts of the legislation.
Some members of Congress say, you know, if the twenty
seventeen Act provisions were to expire at the end of
this year, as is in current law, that would have
(05:29):
a very big negative effect on the economy. And so
then they say, okay, well, we think therefore this bill
should have a big positive effect on the economy because
it prevents that expiration. And you know, we've looked at
it and come to a in terms of some agreement
some disagreement. You know, we think that the bill does
support stronger GDP growth, but it's probably not as big
(05:51):
as some of the critics were hoping for or expecting.
And so that's a substantive criticism, and it's the kind
of welcome one. I mean, if someone wants to know, well,
why aren't you more optimistic on this legislation, Not in
the normative sense, not like it's a good idea or
bad idea, but why don't you a CBO think there
will be a bigger positive growth impact. Well that's a
(06:13):
completely substantive discussion that you know, we have within CBO
every day.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
You're pretty zen about it, though you're getting attacked by
a lot of by the President of the United States,
by the Treasure secretaries. He's not attacking the people who
work at CBO, but attacking the math, the methodology, calling
it illogical.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Okay, you know, I look what the Secretary has done
is he's made substantive assertions that he thinks the math
should be done differently. And I know he said this
in a couple of ways. One is on tariffs, and
the Secretary is pointed out there is very substantial revenues
coming from the tariffs that President Trump has put in place,
you know, since the inauguration of his second term, and
in the Secretary's mind, that should be considered as balancing
(06:55):
out any deficit increase from the reconciliation legislation, and that
arithmetic works. And so we found the reconciliation legislation increased
the deficit by two point four trillion. The terriffs reduced
the deficit by two point five trillion, and that is
completely reasonable arithmetic. We don't have it in our cost
(07:15):
estimate for the legislation just because the tariffs are not
part of legislation, but we have a separate analysis that
the Secretary has pointed to, and that's completely a reasonable
thing and a substantive thing.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
After the break, we dig into the CBO's latest report
on the One Big Beautiful Bill and what it's like
to work there right now. This week, as the Senate
considered the One Big Beautiful Bill, the non partisan Congressional
Budget Office estimated the cost of the House version that
(07:50):
passed in May. I wanted to dig into that process
with CBO's director Bill Swagel.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
The first thing we did was a so called static analysis,
where a conventional analysis that assumes that the economy is
static is unchanged. Now the legislation as I said before
is really gigantic. It's sprawling across this massive spreadsheet. One
would expect that to affect the size of the economy
in lots of different ways. Lower tax rates will give
people incentives to work more, for businesses to invest more,
(08:20):
their changes in immigration, that will affect the labor supply,
and so on. In the first estimate we did, we
essentially ignore all of that and just take the economy
as given the dynamic estimate we put out, you know
more recently then says, well, let's think about those effects
of the legislation on the economy and then the feedback
(08:41):
from the changes to the economy back to the budget.
And that's the difference.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Between the two, tell me the headline of the report
from earlier this week.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
So we and our colleagues at the Joint Committee on
Taxation look at the legislation at all the many pieces
of it. Instead, there's a sense of two types of effects.
One is improving incentives more people to work, for businesses
to invest more, and that would lead them to hire more,
and that increases the size of the economy. On the
(09:10):
other hand, the deficit is larger. I mean, this is
a tax cut, so revenues go down, and that increase
in the deficit has an effect on the economy. It
leads to higher interest rates. Now it's a modest effect,
but the higher interest rate then plays out over the
very large stock of debt that the US government has,
(09:32):
and that goes in the other direction. That higher interest
rates over a large debt means interest payments for the
US are much larger, and it's nearly a trillion dollars
of additional deficits because the impact through interest rates far
outweighs the positive impact on the deficit from stronger growth.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
I want to talk to you a little bit on
a more personal person level on truth social President Trump said,
the CBO is Democrat contry, but you have previously served
in a Republican administration. You're also an economist. How do
you balance or even separate your personal economic philosophies from
the job of overseeing a non partisan office.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
The non partisan aspect of CBO is really the foundation
of the agency. In fact, that's what I tell the
new staff when I meet with staff, generally on their
first day, I say, take a long view. You're going
to work on legislation that you might think is a
good idea, something that you might think is bad idea.
Most of the people, almost everyone we work with on
the Hill is really a very nice and kind of
(10:36):
smart and wonderful person. Occasionally there's some people who are
you know, less so, and we're going to support them
just as hard and you know, just just the same
as the others and just take a long view. It's
important for Congress and for the nation to have an
agency like us, you know, for me, I start from
there and everything else is easier, you know. Criticisms on
(10:59):
you know, from the executive brand, from the White House. Again,
I understand it. It's part of the political process. I
expected it. I don't get worried about it. So I'm
really able to separate the kind of political process from
the substance. And I feel like none of it is personal.
It's not about me. It's just about the political process.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
I do wonder if CBO can weather the storm, though,
because that'sn't himself specifically said he's not attacking CBO employees,
but the White House Press Secretary Carolyn leave It did
say that CBO is a partisan and political agency, and
she said that staff haven't contributed to a Republican since
two thousand and have for Democrats.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
You know, there is some advocacy group that put out
a report along those lines that I think she's leaning on.
It's just a completely made up number. And the people
who work with CBO, you know, our counterparts on the Hill,
they know our staff, they know we're nonpartisan, they trust us,
they understand our processes. I feel like we're able to
(12:07):
focus on our mission, you know, a little bit, tune
out the noise and just keep going. I mean, the
thing you mentioned from the White House Press secretary, I
mean it made me smile, right in a sense. It's
kind of you know, a smile and just keep going.
Because right as you said it was she says something
like CBO employees haven't donated to Republicans. That was that
(12:27):
was it? Since two thousand of course, Well I'm the
director now. In twenty fourteen, a friend of mine was
running for governor of California as a Republican, and I
donated to him.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Now it was any work for President George deb and
I worked.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
For President Bush, and so you know, again I understand
as part of the political process is not personal. It
really did just make me smile, make me laugh, and
That's just the way to kind of respond to it.
That's the way I respond to it. Was just just
to keep going and not to let it worry me.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
And your staff was their respond.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
It's you know, it's harder in a sense because it
can feel personal to people. You know, our staff are
really dedicated. But again, I think people understand. My colleagues
understand this is part of the process and just to
tune it out.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
You're an economist who's supported economic policy makers during the W.
Bush era? Do you support Trump's economic policy agenda?
Speaker 1 (13:28):
I look at legislation and I just think about what
does it do and what does it cost, and not
is this a good idea or a bad idea, because
we at CBO just do not think about that, and
for us to support the Congress, it's really important for
us not to think about that. And in sometimes if
I do my job right, members won't know if I
(13:50):
think their legislation is good or bad. And I think
I've done a pretty good job of that. And yeah,
I'm smiling because there have been instances when members have
tried to kind of suss out what I think of
their bill, and I have been frustrated just because I
say look, I'm sorry, I just I can't tell you.
It's just part of the job, and you Eventually they're
(14:11):
satisfied with that.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
That was Phil Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office,
talking to us about the Trump Administration's One Big Beautiful
Bill and criticism of the CBO's analysis. This is the
Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm Salia Mosen. To get
more from The Big Take and unlimited access to all
of Bloomberg dot com, subscribe today at Bloomberg dot com
(14:35):
slash podcast offer. If you like this episode, make sure
to follow and review The Big Take wherever you listen
to podcasts. It helps people find the show. Thanks for listening.
We'll be back tomorrow.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
There's been a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill in
Washington as lawmakers consider President Trump's tax bill, known as
the One Big Beautiful Bill. It's called the One Big
Beautiful Bill, and it will be the biggest bill ever
passed in our country's history. It passed the House in
May and is currently being considered by the Senate. In
the course of that process, last week, Treasury Secretary Scott
(00:32):
Bessant testified before the Senate Finance Committee. We appreciate you
being here with us, and you may proceed with your statement.
Thank you, Chairman Crapo, ranking Member Widen. Lawmakers had a
lot of questions, including what impact do it have on
the deficit and inflation?
Speaker 3 (00:47):
So you'll the Secretary of the Treasury, so I'm asking you,
what is your view? Will this bill increase or decrease
the guests?
Speaker 1 (00:54):
It is?
Speaker 2 (00:55):
But over several hours of testimony, one thing kept coming up.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
The non partisan CBO, Which is certain CBO is one
of our advisors. Are the same CBO that got it wrong?
Speaker 3 (01:05):
Then this is not the non partisan congressional budgets meant
from CBO, I believe is that all the fifteen million
people lose the health insurance. Well, your colleagues have a
fixation on CBO, and I.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
You're And it's not the first time the Congressional Budget
Office has been dragged into the spotlight. This non partisan
agency puts together projections and analyzes to help Congress determine
the impacts of a new budget or new legislation on
the economy. And this process brings out a fair share
of critics who don't like the math because it chips
away at support for the legislation. But this time around
(01:42):
is a little different, and you could hear that in
Besson's comments to the Senate Finance Committee.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
I am not attacking the people who work at the CBO, Sure,
I am attacking their methodology, and the methodology is completely illogical.
It assumes base.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
The rhetoric around CBO has been heating up. But as
the bill gets closer to passage, the agency has an
important job to do. And so there was one person
I really wanted to talk to, the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office himself, Philip Swagel.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
When our numbers go the way that someone wants, well,
then we're heroes. When the numbers go in the wrong way.
You know, we're just the opposite. And the thing about
the agency is that we're nonpartisan. Whatever the numbers are, well,
that's what we print, that's what we convey to policymakers.
That's our job.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
I'm Saliah Mosen and this is the Big Take from
Bloomberg News Today. On the show, I sit down with
CBO director Phil Swagel to find out how his non
partisan federal agency focuses on economic forecasts when it's sitting
at the center of a political firestorm with Trump's tax
(02:53):
bill moving through Congress. I wanted to start by asking
Phil about the role of the Congressional Budget Office through
the life cycle of a piece of legislation like the
one Big Beautiful bill.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
So, as the Congress is considering that bill, we are
working with them from the very beginning really until the
very end. So at the very beginning the two chambers,
starting with the House, we're working on the budget resolution
and setting out the overall fiscal parameters on which the
bill is built. Then as the House considered the legislation,
(03:25):
we worked with the committees in the House as each
one developed their ideas on medicaid, on snap benefit, the
immigration policies, the Armed services, everything. We work back and
forth with the staff of the different committees as they
develop their ideas, and we're just giving them feedback. We're saying,
here's how much it costs, here's what we think it does,
(03:47):
and they fine tune it. Then we do a cost
estimate of the whole thing. And that's all for the House.
And now the Senate is taking up the bill, and
we're doing the same thing again with the Senate.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
What did you find from.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
The bill has a huge amount in it And if
you look on the CBO website, there's a cost estimate
for the bill that was passed by the House, and
it's actually a spreadsheet and is a spreadsheet with many tabs,
one tab for each committee and then a summary and
then within each tab there's a huge number of lines.
But it gives anyone listening, anyone who goes to our
(04:21):
website and gets the spreadsheet, it gives you an indication
of how sprawling the bill is. And it has both
tax policy, you know, both new provisions such as the
no tax on tips and then extensions of existing provisions
from the twenty seventeen Tax Act, and then it has
lots on the spending side, some healthcare policy snap benefits,
(04:41):
and much more so. There's lots in it. On the
tax side. Relative to current law, the tax policy increases
the deficit, and on the spending side, the changes that
were made in the legislation generally reduce the deficit. The
net of those two comes up to two point four
trillion dollars over ten years, and that's a deficit increase.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
So right now, what are your Republican critics taking issue with?
Speaker 1 (05:07):
I think the most salient criticism is that we the
CBO and our colleagues that Joint Committee on Taxation are
not optimistic enough on the growth impacts of the legislation.
Some members of Congress say, you know, if the twenty
seventeen Act provisions were to expire at the end of
this year, as is in current law, that would have
(05:29):
a very big negative effect on the economy. And so
then they say, okay, well, we think therefore this bill
should have a big positive effect on the economy because
it prevents that expiration. And you know, we've looked at
it and come to a in terms of some agreement
some disagreement. You know, we think that the bill does
support stronger GDP growth, but it's probably not as big
(05:51):
as some of the critics were hoping for or expecting.
And so that's a substantive criticism, and it's the kind
of welcome one. I mean, if someone wants to know, well,
why aren't you more optimistic on this legislation, Not in
the normative sense, not like it's a good idea or
bad idea, but why don't you a CBO think there
will be a bigger positive growth impact. Well that's a
(06:13):
completely substantive discussion that you know, we have within CBO
every day.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
You're pretty zen about it, though you're getting attacked by
a lot of by the President of the United States,
by the Treasure secretaries. He's not attacking the people who
work at CBO, but attacking the math, the methodology, calling
it illogical.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Okay, you know, I look what the Secretary has done
is he's made substantive assertions that he thinks the math
should be done differently. And I know he said this
in a couple of ways. One is on tariffs, and
the Secretary is pointed out there is very substantial revenues
coming from the tariffs that President Trump has put in place,
you know, since the inauguration of his second term, and
in the Secretary's mind, that should be considered as balancing
(06:55):
out any deficit increase from the reconciliation legislation, and that
arithmetic works. And so we found the reconciliation legislation increased
the deficit by two point four trillion. The terriffs reduced
the deficit by two point five trillion, and that is
completely reasonable arithmetic. We don't have it in our cost
(07:15):
estimate for the legislation just because the tariffs are not
part of legislation, but we have a separate analysis that
the Secretary has pointed to, and that's completely a reasonable
thing and a substantive thing.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
After the break, we dig into the CBO's latest report
on the One Big Beautiful Bill and what it's like
to work there right now. This week, as the Senate
considered the One Big Beautiful Bill, the non partisan Congressional
Budget Office estimated the cost of the House version that
(07:50):
passed in May. I wanted to dig into that process
with CBO's director Bill Swagel.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
The first thing we did was a so called static analysis,
where a conventional analysis that assumes that the economy is
static is unchanged. Now the legislation as I said before
is really gigantic. It's sprawling across this massive spreadsheet. One
would expect that to affect the size of the economy
in lots of different ways. Lower tax rates will give
people incentives to work more, for businesses to invest more,
(08:20):
their changes in immigration, that will affect the labor supply,
and so on. In the first estimate we did, we
essentially ignore all of that and just take the economy
as given the dynamic estimate we put out, you know
more recently then says, well, let's think about those effects
of the legislation on the economy and then the feedback
(08:41):
from the changes to the economy back to the budget.
And that's the difference.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Between the two, tell me the headline of the report
from earlier this week.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
So we and our colleagues at the Joint Committee on
Taxation look at the legislation at all the many pieces
of it. Instead, there's a sense of two types of effects.
One is improving incentives more people to work, for businesses
to invest more, and that would lead them to hire more,
and that increases the size of the economy. On the
(09:10):
other hand, the deficit is larger. I mean, this is
a tax cut, so revenues go down, and that increase
in the deficit has an effect on the economy. It
leads to higher interest rates. Now it's a modest effect,
but the higher interest rate then plays out over the
very large stock of debt that the US government has,
(09:32):
and that goes in the other direction. That higher interest
rates over a large debt means interest payments for the
US are much larger, and it's nearly a trillion dollars
of additional deficits because the impact through interest rates far
outweighs the positive impact on the deficit from stronger growth.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
I want to talk to you a little bit on
a more personal person level on truth social President Trump said,
the CBO is Democrat contry, but you have previously served
in a Republican administration. You're also an economist. How do
you balance or even separate your personal economic philosophies from
the job of overseeing a non partisan office.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
The non partisan aspect of CBO is really the foundation
of the agency. In fact, that's what I tell the
new staff when I meet with staff, generally on their
first day, I say, take a long view. You're going
to work on legislation that you might think is a
good idea, something that you might think is bad idea.
Most of the people, almost everyone we work with on
the Hill is really a very nice and kind of
(10:36):
smart and wonderful person. Occasionally there's some people who are
you know, less so, and we're going to support them
just as hard and you know, just just the same
as the others and just take a long view. It's
important for Congress and for the nation to have an
agency like us, you know, for me, I start from
there and everything else is easier, you know. Criticisms on
(10:59):
you know, from the executive brand, from the White House. Again,
I understand it. It's part of the political process. I
expected it. I don't get worried about it. So I'm
really able to separate the kind of political process from
the substance. And I feel like none of it is personal.
It's not about me. It's just about the political process.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
I do wonder if CBO can weather the storm, though,
because that'sn't himself specifically said he's not attacking CBO employees,
but the White House Press Secretary Carolyn leave It did
say that CBO is a partisan and political agency, and
she said that staff haven't contributed to a Republican since
two thousand and have for Democrats.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
You know, there is some advocacy group that put out
a report along those lines that I think she's leaning on.
It's just a completely made up number. And the people
who work with CBO, you know, our counterparts on the Hill,
they know our staff, they know we're nonpartisan, they trust us,
they understand our processes. I feel like we're able to
(12:07):
focus on our mission, you know, a little bit, tune
out the noise and just keep going. I mean, the
thing you mentioned from the White House Press secretary, I
mean it made me smile, right in a sense. It's
kind of you know, a smile and just keep going.
Because right as you said it was she says something
like CBO employees haven't donated to Republicans. That was that
(12:27):
was it? Since two thousand of course, Well I'm the
director now. In twenty fourteen, a friend of mine was
running for governor of California as a Republican, and I
donated to him.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Now it was any work for President George deb and
I worked.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
For President Bush, and so you know, again I understand
as part of the political process is not personal. It
really did just make me smile, make me laugh, and
That's just the way to kind of respond to it.
That's the way I respond to it. Was just just
to keep going and not to let it worry me.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
And your staff was their respond.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
It's you know, it's harder in a sense because it
can feel personal to people. You know, our staff are
really dedicated. But again, I think people understand. My colleagues
understand this is part of the process and just to
tune it out.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
You're an economist who's supported economic policy makers during the W.
Bush era? Do you support Trump's economic policy agenda?
Speaker 1 (13:28):
I look at legislation and I just think about what
does it do and what does it cost, and not
is this a good idea or a bad idea, because
we at CBO just do not think about that, and
for us to support the Congress, it's really important for
us not to think about that. And in sometimes if
I do my job right, members won't know if I
(13:50):
think their legislation is good or bad. And I think
I've done a pretty good job of that. And yeah,
I'm smiling because there have been instances when members have
tried to kind of suss out what I think of
their bill, and I have been frustrated just because I
say look, I'm sorry, I just I can't tell you.
It's just part of the job, and you Eventually they're
(14:11):
satisfied with that.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
That was Phil Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office,
talking to us about the Trump Administration's One Big Beautiful
Bill and criticism of the CBO's analysis. This is the
Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm Salia Mosen. To get
more from The Big Take and unlimited access to all
of Bloomberg dot com, subscribe today at Bloomberg dot com
(14:35):
slash podcast offer. If you like this episode, make sure
to follow and review The Big Take wherever you listen
to podcasts. It helps people find the show. Thanks for listening.
We'll be back tomorrow.
Hosts And Creators
Sarah Holder
Saleha Mohsin
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.