Referring to the reconciliation package by its price tag is unfortunate.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

It seems that the media has decided to refer to the big reconciliation bill as the "$3.5 trillion bill". This is all sorts of unfortunate, for quite a few reasons:

1. It means if people know one thing about the bill, it's the slightly eye-popping price tag. It doesn't say anything about what's actually in the bill. I'll bet most voters don't really know how it would affect them.

2. It obscures the fact that the $3.5 trillion is actually spread out over ten years. In terms of federal spending, $350 billion a year is not all that much.

3. It means any trimming of the package will be seen as a compromise at best or a defeat at worst. If the bill gets slimmed down to, say, $2 trillion, it would still be one of the biggest social investments in modern American history. But all critics will say is that we lost half of it.

Unfortunately, it's probably too late to change the popular shorthand for the bill. I guess the semi-official name is the Build Back Better Act, but that's a bit vague as well. Oh well.

[Hoyt]

2. Congresspeople could have headed that off. Not sure who started

this 10 year stuff anyway. It was a mistake.

[Clearheadsam]

3. It averages out to 1.2% of the GDP over 10 years

The media and Dems didn’t point this out enough. It’s not much but Republicans would rather have Trump in office who calls himself the “ king of debt”. We all know that. 7 trillion in 4 years added to national debt. The republican party is now post idealogical and just about the power grab. So sad.☹️

[BlueCheeseAgain]

4. Yeah, I've seen Krugman make that point.

I suppose someone might say if we try and minimize the size of the bill now, it might be hard to trumpet how big a deal it is later. But right now, tactically, I think trying to convince people that it won't break the bank is a good thing.