Jessica Riedl
@jessicabriedl.bsky.social
Fellow @Brookings.edu. Past: Manhattan Institute (2017-25) Sen. Portman chief economist (2011-17), budget policy for 4 prez campaigns. Fiercely independent and tribeless. Views mine.🏳️🌈
Pinned
Jessica Riedl
@jessicabriedl.bsky.social
· Nov 21
Slowly migrating from toxic Twitter (@Brian_Riedl). I post:
-Rapid-response (right of center) economic policy from a longtime DC policy veteran.
-So many charts – budget, spending, taxes, deficits.
-Contempt for both parties.
-Social libertarianism, tolerance, & civility.
-Wisconsin sports rants.
-Rapid-response (right of center) economic policy from a longtime DC policy veteran.
-So many charts – budget, spending, taxes, deficits.
-Contempt for both parties.
-Social libertarianism, tolerance, & civility.
-Wisconsin sports rants.
The best way to stop the runaway train of budget-busting reconciliation bills is to not let them out of the station in the first place. Even with the best of intentions, fiscal hawks should not awaken the sleeping giant of reconciliation in 2026. (/F)
January 22, 2026 at 1:34 AM
The best way to stop the runaway train of budget-busting reconciliation bills is to not let them out of the station in the first place. Even with the best of intentions, fiscal hawks should not awaken the sleeping giant of reconciliation in 2026. (/F)
Reconciliation 2.0 is sure to morph into yet another $1- to $2 trillion panderfest of tax cuts and spending hikes before the election.
Instead of cutting deficits, GOP hawks will be pressured to vote for yet another budget buster or incur the president's wrath.
Instead of cutting deficits, GOP hawks will be pressured to vote for yet another budget buster or incur the president's wrath.
January 22, 2026 at 1:34 AM
Reconciliation 2.0 is sure to morph into yet another $1- to $2 trillion panderfest of tax cuts and spending hikes before the election.
Instead of cutting deficits, GOP hawks will be pressured to vote for yet another budget buster or incur the president's wrath.
Instead of cutting deficits, GOP hawks will be pressured to vote for yet another budget buster or incur the president's wrath.
Consider Trump's priorities that would surely be added to another reconciliation bill:
- $500 billion in new defense spending
- Up to $600 billion in tariff rebates
- More farm tariff bailouts.
Plus another debt limit hike to rob Democrats of any leverage next Congress.
- $500 billion in new defense spending
- Up to $600 billion in tariff rebates
- More farm tariff bailouts.
Plus another debt limit hike to rob Democrats of any leverage next Congress.
January 22, 2026 at 1:34 AM
Consider Trump's priorities that would surely be added to another reconciliation bill:
- $500 billion in new defense spending
- Up to $600 billion in tariff rebates
- More farm tariff bailouts.
Plus another debt limit hike to rob Democrats of any leverage next Congress.
- $500 billion in new defense spending
- Up to $600 billion in tariff rebates
- More farm tariff bailouts.
Plus another debt limit hike to rob Democrats of any leverage next Congress.
Q: So what's the harm of letting fiscal hawks at least try another reconciliation bill?
Because Reconciliation 2.0 would quickly be taken over by White House & Congressional leaders, stripped of the savings, and packed with another round of "must-pass" tax cuts & spending hikes.
Because Reconciliation 2.0 would quickly be taken over by White House & Congressional leaders, stripped of the savings, and packed with another round of "must-pass" tax cuts & spending hikes.
January 22, 2026 at 1:34 AM
Q: So what's the harm of letting fiscal hawks at least try another reconciliation bill?
Because Reconciliation 2.0 would quickly be taken over by White House & Congressional leaders, stripped of the savings, and packed with another round of "must-pass" tax cuts & spending hikes.
Because Reconciliation 2.0 would quickly be taken over by White House & Congressional leaders, stripped of the savings, and packed with another round of "must-pass" tax cuts & spending hikes.
So, what makes GOP deficit hawks think they can suddenly pass all those huge unpopular spending cuts that were blocked last year? Esp. when:
- It's not part of a must-pass tax cut bill
- The House majority is smaller
- A midterm election approaches.
It's simply not happening.
- It's not part of a must-pass tax cut bill
- The House majority is smaller
- A midterm election approaches.
It's simply not happening.
January 22, 2026 at 1:34 AM
So, what makes GOP deficit hawks think they can suddenly pass all those huge unpopular spending cuts that were blocked last year? Esp. when:
- It's not part of a must-pass tax cut bill
- The House majority is smaller
- A midterm election approaches.
It's simply not happening.
- It's not part of a must-pass tax cut bill
- The House majority is smaller
- A midterm election approaches.
It's simply not happening.
Another reason Reconciliation 1.0's cost exploded was President Trump. He took Social Security and Medicare savings off the table. Then he demanded huge new spending and even more tax cuts.
And GOP lawmakers were not going to get in his way.
And GOP lawmakers were not going to get in his way.
January 22, 2026 at 1:34 AM
Another reason Reconciliation 1.0's cost exploded was President Trump. He took Social Security and Medicare savings off the table. Then he demanded huge new spending and even more tax cuts.
And GOP lawmakers were not going to get in his way.
And GOP lawmakers were not going to get in his way.
GOP deficit hawks - despite months of mapping out offsetting spending cuts - were routed in Reconciliation 1.0 (the OBBBA).
Achieving 217 of 220 House GOP votes for most of their bold offsets proved impossible. They couldn't even quietly bury them in a must-pass tax cut bill.
Achieving 217 of 220 House GOP votes for most of their bold offsets proved impossible. They couldn't even quietly bury them in a must-pass tax cut bill.
January 22, 2026 at 1:34 AM
GOP deficit hawks - despite months of mapping out offsetting spending cuts - were routed in Reconciliation 1.0 (the OBBBA).
Achieving 217 of 220 House GOP votes for most of their bold offsets proved impossible. They couldn't even quietly bury them in a must-pass tax cut bill.
Achieving 217 of 220 House GOP votes for most of their bold offsets proved impossible. They couldn't even quietly bury them in a must-pass tax cut bill.
For a party holding the presidency and Congress, reconciliation has become an annual "Get out of jail free" card for all the tax cuts & spending hikes they could never pass under regular order.
Since 2001, the reconciliation process has added $16 trillion in new debt.
Since 2001, the reconciliation process has added $16 trillion in new debt.
January 22, 2026 at 1:34 AM
For a party holding the presidency and Congress, reconciliation has become an annual "Get out of jail free" card for all the tax cuts & spending hikes they could never pass under regular order.
Since 2001, the reconciliation process has added $16 trillion in new debt.
Since 2001, the reconciliation process has added $16 trillion in new debt.
NEW from me @thedispatchmedia.bsky.social. Congressional GOPers are proposing Reconciliation 2.0 to finally achieve all the big spending cuts they could not get in the OBBBA.
In reality, it would surely become yet another panderfest of tax cuts & spending hikes. 🧵
thedispatch.com/article/repu...
In reality, it would surely become yet another panderfest of tax cuts & spending hikes. 🧵
thedispatch.com/article/repu...
Reconciliation 2.0 Would Likely Bust the Budget
Can we really expect the GOP to make politically risky spending cuts ahead of the midterms?
thedispatch.com
January 22, 2026 at 1:34 AM
NEW from me @thedispatchmedia.bsky.social. Congressional GOPers are proposing Reconciliation 2.0 to finally achieve all the big spending cuts they could not get in the OBBBA.
In reality, it would surely become yet another panderfest of tax cuts & spending hikes. 🧵
thedispatch.com/article/repu...
In reality, it would surely become yet another panderfest of tax cuts & spending hikes. 🧵
thedispatch.com/article/repu...
Reposted by Jessica Riedl
how did this guy run an investment bank?
December 24, 2025 at 4:16 PM
how did this guy run an investment bank?
Ultimately, DOGE was yet another gimmicky attempt to close the $1.8 trillion budget deficit with smoke & mirrors. Sorry, there are no shortcuts. Fixing the budget will require a combination of real benefit cuts, and real tax increases. And not just for your political enemies. /F
December 16, 2025 at 6:13 PM
Ultimately, DOGE was yet another gimmicky attempt to close the $1.8 trillion budget deficit with smoke & mirrors. Sorry, there are no shortcuts. Fixing the budget will require a combination of real benefit cuts, and real tax increases. And not just for your political enemies. /F
Of course, savings may not have been DOGE's real goal.
- Musk likely got major access to proprietary info and ability to steer contracts.
- Trump got to fire "disloyal" Feds.
- Congress got a distraction while they cut taxes by $5 trillion.
- MAGA voters got "liberal tears."
- Musk likely got major access to proprietary info and ability to steer contracts.
- Trump got to fire "disloyal" Feds.
- Congress got a distraction while they cut taxes by $5 trillion.
- MAGA voters got "liberal tears."
December 16, 2025 at 6:13 PM
Of course, savings may not have been DOGE's real goal.
- Musk likely got major access to proprietary info and ability to steer contracts.
- Trump got to fire "disloyal" Feds.
- Congress got a distraction while they cut taxes by $5 trillion.
- MAGA voters got "liberal tears."
- Musk likely got major access to proprietary info and ability to steer contracts.
- Trump got to fire "disloyal" Feds.
- Congress got a distraction while they cut taxes by $5 trillion.
- MAGA voters got "liberal tears."
Problem #3: DOGE was often illegal.
Only legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president can cancel enacted spending. Moreover, Musk was never Senate confirmed, confidential data was reportedly accessed, and the courts determined that DOGE regularly broke the law.
Only legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president can cancel enacted spending. Moreover, Musk was never Senate confirmed, confidential data was reportedly accessed, and the courts determined that DOGE regularly broke the law.
December 16, 2025 at 6:13 PM
Problem #3: DOGE was often illegal.
Only legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president can cancel enacted spending. Moreover, Musk was never Senate confirmed, confidential data was reportedly accessed, and the courts determined that DOGE regularly broke the law.
Only legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president can cancel enacted spending. Moreover, Musk was never Senate confirmed, confidential data was reportedly accessed, and the courts determined that DOGE regularly broke the law.
Problem #2: DOGE was incompetent.
Cutting waste is hard enough with top experts. It is nearly impossible with a bunch of 23yo tech bros with no real expertise in public administration, economics, or policy. The resulting gaffes ranged from infuriating to hilarious.
Cutting waste is hard enough with top experts. It is nearly impossible with a bunch of 23yo tech bros with no real expertise in public administration, economics, or policy. The resulting gaffes ranged from infuriating to hilarious.
December 16, 2025 at 6:13 PM
Problem #2: DOGE was incompetent.
Cutting waste is hard enough with top experts. It is nearly impossible with a bunch of 23yo tech bros with no real expertise in public administration, economics, or policy. The resulting gaffes ranged from infuriating to hilarious.
Cutting waste is hard enough with top experts. It is nearly impossible with a bunch of 23yo tech bros with no real expertise in public administration, economics, or policy. The resulting gaffes ranged from infuriating to hilarious.
Problem #1: DOGE was conceptually flawed.
2/3 of spending goes to Social Security, Medicare, defense, veterans, & interest that were mostly off the table. Even the remaining 1/3 included spending MAGA likes. So DOGE was left to make small, symbolic cuts to "trigger the libs."
2/3 of spending goes to Social Security, Medicare, defense, veterans, & interest that were mostly off the table. Even the remaining 1/3 included spending MAGA likes. So DOGE was left to make small, symbolic cuts to "trigger the libs."
December 16, 2025 at 6:13 PM
Problem #1: DOGE was conceptually flawed.
2/3 of spending goes to Social Security, Medicare, defense, veterans, & interest that were mostly off the table. Even the remaining 1/3 included spending MAGA likes. So DOGE was left to make small, symbolic cuts to "trigger the libs."
2/3 of spending goes to Social Security, Medicare, defense, veterans, & interest that were mostly off the table. Even the remaining 1/3 included spending MAGA likes. So DOGE was left to make small, symbolic cuts to "trigger the libs."
The Treasury spending tables suggest DOGE savings perhaps in the neighborhood of $14 billion. This figure represents:
0.2% of the $7 trillion federal budget.
5% of the $275 billion net spending increase in 2025.
0.7% of Elon Musk's $2 trillion goal. 😳
0.2% of the $7 trillion federal budget.
5% of the $275 billion net spending increase in 2025.
0.7% of Elon Musk's $2 trillion goal. 😳
December 16, 2025 at 6:13 PM
The Treasury spending tables suggest DOGE savings perhaps in the neighborhood of $14 billion. This figure represents:
0.2% of the $7 trillion federal budget.
5% of the $275 billion net spending increase in 2025.
0.7% of Elon Musk's $2 trillion goal. 😳
0.2% of the $7 trillion federal budget.
5% of the $275 billion net spending increase in 2025.
0.7% of Elon Musk's $2 trillion goal. 😳
NEW from me in @thedispatchmedia.bsky.social. DOGE's most successful program elimination was itself, as it has reportedly closed down.
I explain why its failure to deeply slash spending was so predictable, and what that means for deficits. 🧵 thedispatch.com/article/why-...
I explain why its failure to deeply slash spending was so predictable, and what that means for deficits. 🧵 thedispatch.com/article/why-...
Why DOGE Failed to Slash Spending
There are no shortcuts to trimming the federal budget.
thedispatch.com
December 16, 2025 at 6:13 PM
NEW from me in @thedispatchmedia.bsky.social. DOGE's most successful program elimination was itself, as it has reportedly closed down.
I explain why its failure to deeply slash spending was so predictable, and what that means for deficits. 🧵 thedispatch.com/article/why-...
I explain why its failure to deeply slash spending was so predictable, and what that means for deficits. 🧵 thedispatch.com/article/why-...
Professional news: After 8 years and 300 publications at the Manhattan Institute …
… I’m excited to join the Brookings Institution as a budget & tax fellow in its Tax Policy Center. New home, but same, center-right, fiscal hawk, free market economic analysis.
… I’m excited to join the Brookings Institution as a budget & tax fellow in its Tax Policy Center. New home, but same, center-right, fiscal hawk, free market economic analysis.
November 25, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Professional news: After 8 years and 300 publications at the Manhattan Institute …
… I’m excited to join the Brookings Institution as a budget & tax fellow in its Tax Policy Center. New home, but same, center-right, fiscal hawk, free market economic analysis.
… I’m excited to join the Brookings Institution as a budget & tax fellow in its Tax Policy Center. New home, but same, center-right, fiscal hawk, free market economic analysis.
Let's say you take out a $400,000 mortgage loan at 6.25% - and choose a 50-year mortgage instead of 30 years.
In return for saving $283 monthly, you will pay an extra $421,302 in interest over the life of the loan.
Or if you sell at 15 years, will have paid down just $29,000 in equity. Not good.
In return for saving $283 monthly, you will pay an extra $421,302 in interest over the life of the loan.
Or if you sell at 15 years, will have paid down just $29,000 in equity. Not good.
INGRAHAM: Is a 50 year mortgage really a good idea?
TRUMP: It's not even a big deal. You go from 40 to 50 years. All it means is you pay less per month
TRUMP: It's not even a big deal. You go from 40 to 50 years. All it means is you pay less per month
November 11, 2025 at 4:07 PM
Let's say you take out a $400,000 mortgage loan at 6.25% - and choose a 50-year mortgage instead of 30 years.
In return for saving $283 monthly, you will pay an extra $421,302 in interest over the life of the loan.
Or if you sell at 15 years, will have paid down just $29,000 in equity. Not good.
In return for saving $283 monthly, you will pay an extra $421,302 in interest over the life of the loan.
Or if you sell at 15 years, will have paid down just $29,000 in equity. Not good.
Reposted by Jessica Riedl
As always, it's appalling at the same time it's so cheap, tawdry, and embarrassing. What a pathetic, shabby little gangster.
Trump on Mamdani: "He should be very nice to me. He's off to a bad start. I think it's a very dangerous statement for him to make."
November 6, 2025 at 12:26 AM
As always, it's appalling at the same time it's so cheap, tawdry, and embarrassing. What a pathetic, shabby little gangster.
So, no, there is no deficit reduction miracle. DOGE, tariffs, oil & gas revenues - all were supposed to balance the budget and pay off the debt.
Instead, big tax cuts and spending hikes pushed projected deficits towards $3T-$4T within a decade. Ignore the spin, watch the data.
Instead, big tax cuts and spending hikes pushed projected deficits towards $3T-$4T within a decade. Ignore the spin, watch the data.
November 4, 2025 at 3:43 AM
So, no, there is no deficit reduction miracle. DOGE, tariffs, oil & gas revenues - all were supposed to balance the budget and pay off the debt.
Instead, big tax cuts and spending hikes pushed projected deficits towards $3T-$4T within a decade. Ignore the spin, watch the data.
Instead, big tax cuts and spending hikes pushed projected deficits towards $3T-$4T within a decade. Ignore the spin, watch the data.
Wait - Didn't DOGE drastically cut deficits in the second of half of 2025?
Haha, you're funny. The only evidence of DOGE savings is a $12 billion reduction in State Dept & foreign aid funding. And the IRS layoffs will cost more money than that in tax evasion and fewer audits.
Haha, you're funny. The only evidence of DOGE savings is a $12 billion reduction in State Dept & foreign aid funding. And the IRS layoffs will cost more money than that in tax evasion and fewer audits.
November 4, 2025 at 3:43 AM
Wait - Didn't DOGE drastically cut deficits in the second of half of 2025?
Haha, you're funny. The only evidence of DOGE savings is a $12 billion reduction in State Dept & foreign aid funding. And the IRS layoffs will cost more money than that in tax evasion and fewer audits.
Haha, you're funny. The only evidence of DOGE savings is a $12 billion reduction in State Dept & foreign aid funding. And the IRS layoffs will cost more money than that in tax evasion and fewer audits.
That leaves $110 billion in higher revenues from tariffs in the second half of 2025. That is real - but also not guaranteed to last due to the courts, policy changes, and revenues lost to Americans switching out of imports. And its far smaller than the ballooning OBBBA cost.
November 4, 2025 at 3:43 AM
That leaves $110 billion in higher revenues from tariffs in the second half of 2025. That is real - but also not guaranteed to last due to the courts, policy changes, and revenues lost to Americans switching out of imports. And its far smaller than the ballooning OBBBA cost.
Yes, the 2025-2H deficits were smaller than the 2H deficits in 2023 & 2024. That's also an accounting timing issue - the govt "booked" several years of OBBBA student loan savings in August & Sept. They didn't achieve the savings, they just counted the NPV ahead of time.
November 4, 2025 at 3:43 AM
Yes, the 2025-2H deficits were smaller than the 2H deficits in 2023 & 2024. That's also an accounting timing issue - the govt "booked" several years of OBBBA student loan savings in August & Sept. They didn't achieve the savings, they just counted the NPV ahead of time.
The problem? Monthly deficits *always* shrink in the second half of the fiscal year because the later April-Sept period includes big revenues from the April 15th tax deadline, and 3 of the 4 quarterly corporate tax due dates. Falling deficits are due to tax due dates, not policy.
November 4, 2025 at 3:43 AM
The problem? Monthly deficits *always* shrink in the second half of the fiscal year because the later April-Sept period includes big revenues from the April 15th tax deadline, and 3 of the 4 quarterly corporate tax due dates. Falling deficits are due to tax due dates, not policy.