SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
budget
GOP Ready Plan to Gut Medicaid to 'Pay for Tax Cuts for Billionaires'
Defeating Republican efforts to slash health coverage for the nation's poor, said one observer, is also an opportunity "to expose and deepen the fractures in Trump's coalition, and to shatter the illusion that he can't be stopped."
Feb 11, 2025
Defenders of Medicaid are sounding the alarm over plans by the Republican Party—led by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson—to eviscerate the nation's healthcare system used by low-income individuals and families, warning that the attack would jeopardize healthcare for tens of millions of the poorest Americans as part of an effort to give the wealthiest individuals and corporations massive tax breaks.
Internal divisions within the House GOP caucus have hinged on the overall size of cuts to federal spending in their yet-to-be-released budget blueprint, with competing proposals ranging from $1.25 trillion in cuts up to $2.5 trillion. Of that overall number, hundreds of billions in Medicaid cuts may come in the form of block grants to states, caps on per capita costs, and work requirements.
"For months," wrote Paul Heideman on Monday in Jacobin, "Republicans have said that their budget will cut spending in order to pay for making permanent Trump's tax cuts for the rich, which are set to expire this year."
One of the key targets of their austerity plan, he notes, is Medicaid, which Republicans, as reported by Politico on Tuesday, believe they can cut by an estimated $800 billion or more over the next decade.
"They are cutting healthcare to pay for tax cuts for billionaires."
Echoing the call of other progressive voices, Heideman argues that opponents should seize on the tensions within the GOP—where right-wing hardliners are openly calling for cuts while those in more swing districts have expressed increasing anxiety about what happens politically if they take the axe to a program that is resoundingly popular with voters.
CNNreporting on Monday about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering within the caucus quoted one unnamed Republican lawmaker who said that some members want "to cut to the bone" when in it comes to Medicaid and other programs. While the lawmaker said they were "willing to cut a lot" from the federal budget, "if you cut the essential stuff that affects people every day, you will lose the majority in two years. I can guarantee it.”
Meanwhile, Politico offered more evidence that Trump and House Republicans are still not on the same page:
GOP leaders told senior Republicans in a series of private meetings Monday that Trump wasn’t yet on board with the major Medicaid cuts it would take to secure up to an additional $800 billion in savings, according to three people familiar with the conversations who, like the others, were granted anonymity to describe the private talks.
Johnson and senior Republicans are wary of pursuing the Medicaid reforms only for Trump to publicly bash the move. GOP leaders indicated in private meetings Monday that "they need to work with Trump" on the Medicaid issue before proceeding, according to one of the people.
As Heideman notes, one can't fully understand the attacks on Medicaid—which could boot tens of millions of people out of the program—without recognizing the GOP's parallel strategy for massive tax giveaways for the rich and corporations:
Republicans are hoping to extend the tax cuts passed in Donald Trump's first term. These tax cuts, which were the only substantial legislative accomplishment of Trump's first term, were massively skewed toward the rich. The average household in the top 1 percent of income earners received about $60,000, while the average of the bottom 80 percent of households received only $762.
All of this largesse for the rich was expensive; estimates are it will cost the government nearly $2 trillion over ten years. Because of this, a number of Republicans in Congress insist that any extension of the tax cut must be accompanied by spending cuts to prevent it from adding massively to the deficit. With a razor-thin majority in the House, these deficit hawks could sink any attempt by Trump and the GOP leadership to ram the cuts through in spite of their impact on the deficit. Finding a way to substantially cut Medicaid spending has thus become central to the larger GOP budget plan.
On Tuesday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) detailed how one Republican approach to cutting Medicaid—a federal spending freeze that would cap per capita costs—would drastically increase financial pressure on the state programs that administer Medicaid programs.
"If federal funding drops sharply," warned Elizabeth Zhang, a CBPP research assistant, "states would be forced to scale back Medicaid by cutting people from the program, slashing benefits for remaining enrollees, reducing payments to hospitals and physicians—or a combination of all three. This would harm Medicaid enrollees across the program."
Pushing back against the proposed assault on a program that serves over 80 million people each year, all 47 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus on Monday sent a letter to Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) saying he and his Republican colleagues should "reject proposals that use Medicaid as a piggy bank for partisan priorities and continue to defend the importance of this vital program." According to the letter:
Republicans are proposing cuts to the Medicaid program from hundreds of billions to multiple trillions of dollars. Cuts to Medicaid through drastically changing the program's financing structure or imposing additional barriers to coverage are dangerous to the millions of people who rely on the program. These proposals will also force states to make difficult decisions that will result in millions getting kicked off their coverage and providers struggling to keep their practices open. States simply cannot absorb these massive funding cuts without hurting children, seniors, people with disabilities, tribal populations, patients with chronic illnesses, and many other Americans who rely on Medicaid.
"The American people should be assured," the letter concluded, "that Medicaid will be protected."
Last week, as Common Dreamsreported, a separate CBPP report estimated that a GOP proposal to institute work requirements for Medicaid recipients could result in 36 million people being axed from the life-saving program. Predictions such as this could be why, as Politico noted, "Trump and his team are worried those cuts will invite political blowback."
The problem for progressives is that Republicans have discovered that while cuts to Medicaid are demonstrably unpopular with the voting public, the implementation of so-called "work requirements" has received more traction in opinion polls. As such, GOP leaders, including House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), may believe they have a new way to trick people into helping them undermine or destroy the program.
This is why Heideman argues it is key for Medicaid defenders to be adamant in their opposition and clear in their messaging when it comes to work requirements or other deceptive messaging about Republican intentions.
Work requirements for Medicaid, Heideman argues, should be called exactly what they are: cuts. As he explains:
During the first Trump administration, states were granted waivers to institute work requirements. Only Arkansas actually implemented the policy, and the results are instructive. About a quarter of Medicaid recipients subject to the requirement (about 18,000 people) lost coverage while the waiver was in effect. Yet the requirement produced zero effect on employment. People kicked off Medicaid were no more likely to have jobs than they were while they were on it.
The reason for this is simple. Most people on Medicaid are already working. Among those that aren’t, most are either disabled, taking care of a family member, or going to school. There simply aren’t that many people on Medicaid who could go get a job, even if their health care is cut off. Moreover, work requirements often lead to people who technically shouldn’t be removed from the program being kicked off because they haven’t supplied the proper paperwork establishing their employment. Work requirements do nothing to make people work more. They simply kick people off the rolls.
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out last week that "92% of Medicaid adult enrollees are working, or are not working due to caregiving, an illness or disability, or school attendance."
So while Speaker Johnson and other Republican leaders have tried to say they are not proposing cuts to Medicaid in their pending budget blueprint, informed critics are pointing out that this a blatant falsehood.
Heideman says that the battle to defend the program is important in its own right but also has broader political implications.
"Defeating Medicaid cuts is an urgent priority over the coming months," he argues. "It's an opportunity to reestablish the popularity of the welfare state as a principle of American politics and to hand Trump and the GOP a much-needed defeat. Because of the GOP's disarray, it also has the potential to hamstring the party's only substantive legislative priority. Finally, this kind of work can provide some balance and ability for longer-term coordination amid the daily outrage that the administration is committing. The Left should not let this opportunity slip by."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Big Oil Lobbied Its Way Out of Accountability for the LA Fires
"Accountability is an existential threat to their business model, and their business model is an existential threat to all of us, and that’s the bottom line," said Meghan Sahli-Wells, the former mayor of Culver City.
Jan 15, 2025
As devastating wildfires continue to burn in the Los Angeles region on Wednesday—placing tens of thousands of Californians under evacuation orders and causing over $250 billion in economic damages by one estimate—a pair of new reports highlight how fossil fuel companies have dodged responsibility for their role in the destruction and hampered the state's ability to fight back by depriving it of funds.
California's fossil fuel industry deployed lobbying muscle to kill legislation that would compel polluters to pay into a fund that would help prevent disasters and aid cleanup efforts, and has taken advantage of a tax loophole to deprives the state of corporate tax revenue, thereby "putting climate and social programs in peril." In the case of the former, California's biggest fossil fuel trade group, the Western States Petroleum Association, recently launched a digital campaign that appears aimed at throwing cold water on any such legislative efforts.
According to The Guardian, the Polluters Pay Climate Cost Recovery Act of 2024 appeared on 76% of the 74 lobby filings submitted in 2024 by the oil company Chevron and the Western States Petroleum Association.
The legislation—which didn't make it out of the state senate in 2024—would, if enacted, create a recovery program forcing fossil fuel polluters to pay their "fair share of the damage caused by the sale of their products" during the period of 2000 to 2020, according to the nonprofit newsroom CalMatters.
According to The Guardian, the filings from those two firms that included this specific bill totaled over $30 million—though lobbying laws do not require a breakdown that would make clear how much was spent specifically on the "polluter pay" law.
With Los Angeles burning, there's renewed interest in passing the bill, The Guardian reports, citing supporters of the legislation. But Western States Petroleum Association isn't sitting idly by. On January 8, the group launched ads that suggest measures like the "polluter pay" bill would force them to increase oil prices. The ads, which appear to have been taken down, do "not specifically mention the polluter pay bill, it echoes the 2024 campaign that did," wrote The Guardian.
"Accountability is an existential threat to their business model, and their business model is an existential threat to all of us, and that’s the bottom line," said Meghan Sahli-Wells, the former mayor of Culver City who currently works for the environmental advocacy group Elected Officials To Protect America, told the paper.
Meanwhile, another report from The Climate Center—a think tank and "do-tank" focused on curbing pollution—has thrust a tax loophole long used by multinational oil and gas companies, into the spotlight.
The report released last week details how "years of litigation and lobbying by oil and gas majors like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell Oil" are responsible for a large corporate tax avoidance policy that is known as the "Water's Edge election" that became law in 1986.
The law allows multinational corporations to "elect" avoid taxes on earnings they designate as beyond the "water's edge" of the borders of states in which they operate, according to The Climate Center.
"Closing the loophole as it applies to the oil and gas industry could put anywhere between $75 to $146 million per year back into the state’s budget," the report states.
For context, California closed a $46 billion budget shortfall last year, including by enacting cuts to climate and clean air programs.
"The water's edge tax loophole allows multinational fossil fuel corporations to dodge paying their fair share of taxes that can help fund vital environmental projects, which could include wildfire preparedness," California Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-12) told the progressive outlet The Lever, the first outlet to report on the findings.
California lawmakers last year passed a bill that took aim at some aspects of the loophole, but an advocacy group whose board of directors includes representative from the oil and gas industry has filed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the reform, according to the The Climate Center.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Budget Priorities Should Reflect the People's Agenda, Not Hasten Nuclear Oblivion
This fiscal year 2024, the United States will spend $94.485 billion on all nuclear weapons programs, an increase of over $4 billion from last year.
Apr 15, 2024
Today, April 15, is the day we fund our nation's priorities as determined by our elected leaders.
Last month the United Way released its 2023 211 Impact Survey of roughly 16 million requests, offering insights into the trends and challenges faced by households and communities across the country. Topping the list were housing, utilities, and food assistance as the top needs of people seeking support nationwide. Similarly, a Gallop poll released last month listed the economy, inflation, hunger and homelessness, and healthcare costs in the top five priorities.
Where do nuclear weapons fit in? They're not even on the radar of most people, and particularly not mainstream news outlets. Yet this fiscal year 2024, the United States will spend $94.485 billion on all nuclear weapons programs. This is an increase of over $4 billion from last year. This expenditure is for weapons that can never be used without posing a threat to all of humanity. Yet these expenditures continue to grow out of control, year over year. It is fueled by the mythology of nuclear deterrence, the major driver of the arms race. Not to be outdone, every country feels driven to exceed the nuclear forces and capabilities of their adversaries. We spiral out of control toward nuclear oblivion, ever increasing the potential for nuclear war either by intent, miscalculation, or accident.
The nuclear abolition movement is here and growing.
Nuclear weapons threaten us every moment of every day. There are 12,119 weapons in the global nuclear arsenals. We know that the use of even a tiny fraction, less than one-half of 1% of these weapons over a single populated region, could cause catastrophic climate change lasting years and potentially putting 2 billion people at risk.
With this nuclear famine knowledge, the new arms race shifts from the paradigm of (MAD) Mutually Assured Destruction to (SAD) Self Assured Destruction. These weapons rob our communities of precious resources that could be redirected to the many needs that our communities cry out for. The very existence of nuclear weapons and programs is an economic, environmental, social, and racial justice issue. Yet this is a situation that does not have to be.
Back From the Brink is a growing movement across this nation. It calls for a no-first-use policy, ending sole presidential authority to launch nuclear weapons, ending "hair trigger alert," canceling the plans to replace the entire arsenal with new weapons, and most importantly, resumption of negotiations for a multilateral, verifiable treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons. This campaign is supported by U.S. House Resolution 77, which embraces the goals and provisions of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and each of the precautionary measures in the Back From the Brink campaign. The resolution currently has 44 cosponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives.
This past year has seen heightened awareness of the threat of nuclear weapons moving into the mainstream with the release of the Academy Award-winning film Oppenheimer; The New York Times series "At the Brink," with an in-depth overview of the risk and potential impacts of nuclear war; last week's Boston Globe editorial "We Need to Start Worrying About the Bomb;" and the recently published books Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen and Countdown: The Blinding Future of Nuclear Weapons by Sarah Scoles.
The nuclear abolition movement is here and growing. It is time for our budget priorities to reflect the people's agenda and to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular