With just 48 hours before President Donald Trump’s self-imposed deadline to push his sweeping economic package into law, two Middle Georgia economists are sounding off—one calls it a “disaster,” the other sees a glimmer of fiscal logic.
Both agree on one thing: the numbers don’t lie, and they’re big.
A Near Miss in the Senate Sparks Heated Debate
President Trump’s so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” cleared the U.S. Senate by a hair earlier this week. One vote was all it took to move the controversial measure—stuffed with tax cuts, fresh spending, and legacy-shaping ambitions—over the finish line in the upper chamber.
Now, the clock ticks down to July 5, the deadline Trump himself declared as the must-pass moment for the bill to head to the House.
And in Georgia, the professors are watching with crossed arms and calculators ready.
“This is the big, beautiful disaster,” said Dr. Antonio Saravia, an economics professor at Mercer University. “We’re talking about trillions added to the deficit. Not millions. Not billions. Trillions.”
On the other hand, Dr. Greg George, who teaches at Middle Georgia State University and directs its Center for Economic Analysis, said the proposal isn’t as wild as some folks think.
“Yes, the deficit projections are steep. But the number—3.5 trillion over ten years—is actually less than what we’ve seen in recent spending waves,” George explained.
One sentence here. Just to breathe.
Saravia Warns of Deficits and Structural Imbalance
Saravia, who also leads Mercer’s Center for the Study of Economics and Liberty, didn’t sugarcoat his reaction.
He said the bill’s structure—combining reduced tax revenues with increased government spending—is precisely what economists caution against during non-recessionary periods.
“There’s no counter-cyclical logic here,” he told WGXA. “You’re stimulating while the economy is already hot. That’s how inflationary pressure builds.”
He also expressed concern that state and local governments like Macon-Bibb could be caught in the policy crossfire.
“Federal deficits don’t happen in a vacuum,” he said. “Eventually, that pressure finds its way down the ladder. It crowds out local investment. It means less flexibility for places like Middle Georgia.”
Not everyone buys that argument, though.
George Sees Echoes of Past Fiscal Decisions
Dr. Greg George, who’s spent two decades tracking Georgia’s economic pulse, says while he shares some of Saravia’s deficit worries, he doesn’t see this as unprecedented.
He points to stimulus-era packages during COVID and post-2008 recovery periods. “This isn’t exactly new territory,” George said. “Washington’s been here before—though the packaging is definitely more, uh, Trumpian.”
According to George, Georgia may actually benefit from infrastructure-related provisions buried in the bill. Roads, water projects, even agricultural support might find their way into Middle Georgia if appropriations follow through.
Here’s the tradeoff, he says:
-
Short-term benefits: local job boosts, federal investment in rural areas
-
Long-term risks: inflation, interest rate volatility, and a fatter federal IOU
“Most economists are torn,” George added. “You don’t want to say no to funding that could help your district. But you also don’t want to mortgage the future.”
One small paragraph. One sentence. Just enough.
What’s Actually In the “Beautiful” Bill?
The White House hasn’t released the final line-by-line breakdown, but early Senate drafts point to some key priorities:
| Category | Key Feature | Estimated Cost (10 years) |
|---|---|---|
| Tax Reforms | Extended individual tax cuts; corporate rate tweaks | $1.2 trillion |
| Infrastructure Projects | Roads, broadband, airports | $700 billion |
| Defense & Veterans | Expanded benefits, new weapons R&D | $600 billion |
| Social Spending | Childcare tax credits, healthcare subsidies | $500 billion |
| Education & Workforce | College loan forgiveness programs | $200 billion |
Some economists argue the bill lacks offsetting revenue increases. Others say that’s the point—it’s a political bill more than a policy blueprint.
The name itself? Classic Trump branding, Saravia said. “It’s distraction through language.”
Georgia’s House Republicans Have Yet to Tip Their Hand
With the Senate vote done, attention shifts to the House. Georgia’s GOP delegation hasn’t committed one way or the other.
Privately, aides to two rural Republican representatives told WGXA they’re “leaning yes” but watching the budget office numbers closely. Another said their office had received “mixed messages” from constituents.
This part’s important: Trump’s approval ratings in Middle Georgia remain high, especially in Macon and Warner Robins. Voting against the president’s signature economic bill—even with deficit concerns—could be politically dicey for Republicans in safe red districts.
One veteran staffer said flatly, “Nobody wants to be the Georgia guy who killed the Trump bill.”
Economic Theories Collide in the Classroom and Capitol
This week, Trump called the bill “a miracle of growth,” and said it would “put America back on the path to greatness.”
But in lecture halls across Georgia, it’s the subject of fiery debate.
Saravia, who teaches economic freedom and global capitalism, said the bill’s structure feels like “supply-side cosplay” without discipline.
George, who teaches public finance and state budgeting, said it’s “better than doing nothing,” especially if growth projections hit their targets.
Here’s where both professors agree: we’re in uncharted territory.
And that, maybe more than anything, is what has economists losing sleep.
