The very job of elected representatives - all of them - is to read the bills for themselves, and scrutinize them before voting for them.
There is simply no justification for passing a bloated reconciliation bill that proposes the very same spending levels that the republican majority ran and was elected to cut. They have been elected to end the passage of large bills that conceal treachery and waste. The single appropriations bills, which fund each important area of the government on their own, represent more transparency, more direct accountability to the people, the exposure and elimination of waste and destructive, transformational projects. We now have a republican majority in both houses of Congress, who ran on cutting spending, and more honesty and accountability to the voters through small, individual appropriation bills. The fact that some now insist on continuing what is essentially the "old way" and Biden era spending, and that such bills get presented for a vote before most members of Congress can actually read such bills, strongly suggests that there is a Marxist-like figure or small coup within the Republican congressional leadership that is continually - deliberately - trying to steer Congress away from all such positive changes. I have heard the defenses of Scott Bessent, as well as other "spokespeople" defending this bill, and they have no argument. Their arguments do not acknowledge the importance of cutting waste - and in a meaningful way - now, when it the opportunity is right in front of them. They are silent regarding any of the problematic things in the bill that have no relevance to the reasons for which these congressional members were elected, and they seem to have no real drive to eliminate them. They have yet to name any member of Congress other than themselves that actually insists on keeping these things in the bill. Instead, they are counting on revenue that has yet to be realized, for which there is no guarantee, to "cover" the waste. This, they predict, will reduce the deficit. There are many problems with this argument. First, the very growth and industry being sought to bring such revenue is greatly retarded by this spending, particularly when it is combined with the artificially low interest rates. It floods the economy with added money and serves as a direct competitor to such industry in a myriad of ways. These include the incentive and ability to make the investments needed for such industry to be realized; Higher interest rates would help these investments to grow and strengthen the industry they support, whereas low interest rates keep these investments and savings stagnant. Such spending further takes from the ability of consumers to purchase such goods by further eroding the dollar, and makes all such goods more expensive. It diminishes the incentive for potential workers to participate in these endeavors and make a good living for themselves, rather than depend on this government spending for their living. It also serves to sustain other projects and entities that do not serve to make the country better, and which often serve as a direct competitor for the amount of available labor. Finally, and perhaps most important: Even if such additional revenue could completely erase the deficit, this does not truly make up for the existing, exorbitant spending and the damage that it causes. When spending cuts are done in small, gradual steps over a long period of time, the problem and the damage is prolonged. Adverse things continue to be fed, and the corruption and damage deepens when it is allowed to remain for a longer period of time; It is that much more time that we don't have, that much more debt. It is further delay and damage to industry, and especially, to people's morale and dreams. People's lives are going by, and time is important. This money, which could otherwise be saved and used to pay down the debt, is instead still being showered onto the economy, putting out the flame of freedom. It is time to let the economy dry out, and for the people to realize that if they are being hurt by a drastic reduction in spending, it is likely because they have been caught up in a rigged system and told it was normal. Now that the rigging is being taken down, they may feel hurt or betrayed, but in fact, they are being well-served, possibly for the first time in their lives.