Will McClintock’s Vote Deliver for Calaveras—or Leave Us Behind?

Congressman Tom McClintock (CA-05) voted in favor of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” expressing strong support for its provisions and potential economic impact.

In his statements, McClintock emphasized the bill’s tax and regulatory relief as essential for reviving the American economy. He acknowledged the bill’s imperfections but argued that its passage was a necessary first step toward broader fiscal reforms. McClintock highlighted the importance of timely implementation, suggesting that the bill’s measures could lead to significant economic growth within a year. Despite his invoking of Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln to underscore the need for collective action and compromise in pursuit of the common good, his logic absolutely does not hold water and the residents of Calaveras County deserve the truth.

Let’s have a reality check. Will “One Big Beautiful Bill” Deliver for Calaveras County?

Based on the current political climate and past performance, Tom McClintock’s prediction of “one of the most explosive periods of growth in our history” as a result of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is highly optimistic and, in economic terms, unlikely without significant and favorable shifts in several key areas.

1. Past Performance of Similar Tax Cuts:

• 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA):
  • While it provided short-term boosts to GDP growth (up to ~3% in 2018), the effects were temporary, and growth returned to ~2% pre-pandemic levels.
  • Business investment, which was supposed to surge, rose modestly, and many corporations used the tax windfall on stock buybacks rather than wage growth or hiring.
  • The wealthiest households and corporations saw the largest gains, and there is little evidence that these groups increased spending in a way that meaningfully stimulated the broader economy.

Conclusion: There is no strong precedent that similar cuts have led to explosive, inclusive growth.

2. Current Political Climate:

• Hyper-Partisanship: The bill passed by a razor-thin margin (215–214), and future legislative efforts to build on it (like a 2026 budget reconciliation) are likely to encounter even more gridlock.
• Senate Outlook: If Democrats retain or flip the Senate in 2026, follow-on reforms McClintock references could stall completely.
• Debt Concerns: Growing unease about the U.S. deficit—projected to rise by $3.8 trillion due to this bill—has already led to warnings from the credit rating agencies.

Conclusion: The environment is not favorable for robust policy follow-through or bipartisan cooperation to deliver on long-term growth promises.

3. Consumer Behavior and Economic Trends:

• Tax Cut Distribution: As in 2017, most tax relief favors higher earners, who are less likely to spend additional income. Lower- and middle-income earners, whose spending drives demand, receive less relief.
• Discretionary Spending Patterns: Recent data from Moody’s and the Brookings Institution show that wealthier Americans save or invest much of their tax cuts, while working-class households are more likely to spend—but they are getting less in this deal.
• Inflation & Interest Rates: Any demand-side boost could be tempered or even neutralized by high interest rates, which the Fed is maintaining to control inflation.

Conclusion: It’s unlikely that consumer behavior will deliver the kind of spending surge McClintock envisions.

4. Infrastructure, Energy, and Border Promises:

• Many of the promised benefits—like border wall construction or energy expansion—require long timelines, permitting, and appropriations battles, and their economic impact is uncertain and not immediate.
• Border wall and Medicaid work requirements may play well politically with his base, but these don’t directly translate into broad economic growth.

Final Assessment:   

For all of these reasons, the likelihood of McClintock’s prediction coming true — “explosive economic growth, safer communities, abundant energy, better jobs” within a year — is really very low.

Much like the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the benefits of this new legislation are expected to favor higher-income earners and corporations, groups that tend to save rather than spend their additional income. This does little to boost rural economies, where working families need immediate, tangible support. For everyday people in Calaveras County, the impact may be minimal, particularly without further reforms that directly target rural infrastructure, healthcare access, and rural broadband in California.  In fact, the cuts are expected to have a decidedly negative effect on the residents of Calaveras County.  A topic this blog will be researching in future as the bill progresses.

Additionally, the bill passed the House by a single vote, and further legislative efforts—like a rural development package or spending reforms—are expected to face stiff opposition. Unless follow-up legislation is passed and consumer behavior shifts dramatically, many of McClintock’s constituents may find themselves still asking: “Am I better off today than I was two years ago?”

With upcoming votes on rural development in 2025 and the broader Farm Bill California impact still undecided, residents of Calaveras County will want to keep a close eye on how their representative votes—and how those decisions affect their daily lives.  One way to do this is to follow our blog.

What’s Next? The bill now heads to the Senate and then likely back to the House. As the Senate and House continue to debate and work on the bill, we encourage Calaveras County residents to stay informed and engage with their representatives to express their views on how these changes could affect their communities. Given McClintock’s prior opposition to rural-targeted bills, his vote on this and the other packages in the coming months will be a critical indicator of whether he intends to prioritize the needs of communities like Calaveras County.  Given his past performance, we are not holding our breath.