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
housing
Cutting Medicaid, SNAP, and Housing Assistance Will Harm Low-Income Americans
Members of House committees must carefully consider the benefits that these programs deliver to U.S. families before making decisions about where and how to make the spending cuts required by the latest budget.
Mar 15, 2025
n late February, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget resolution that calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in federal spending cuts. This resolution provides a framework for a more detailed budget bill to come, mandating certain House committees to reduce spending over the next decade on government programs under their purview—for instance, calling on the Committee on Energy and Commerce to find $880 billion in cuts, $230 billion for the Agriculture Committee, and $1 billion for the Committee on Financial Services, among others. These committees will have to make difficult decisions about where to reduce federal spending and by how much as they draft their actual budgets in the coming weeks.
The implications of their decisions will be far reaching. Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and housing assistance programs are all at risk because they fall under the jurisdiction of the committees subject to large spending cuts and comprise a major share of those committees’ spending. Cutting back on these social infrastructure programs would come at a huge cost for the well-being of U.S. families, given the well-documented benefits these programs bring to the health, education, and financial stability of participating households.
The Impact of Cutting Medicaid
The U.S. private health insurance system does not cover large groups of people—for instance, low-income elderly people who need assistance for expensive long-term care, people with disabilities, and low-income children and adults—all of whom turn to Medicaid for healthcare coverage. The Medicaid program is the second-largest program under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and appears to be a bigger target for federal spending cuts than Medicare, the largest program in their portfolio. More than half of Medicaid spending supports seniors or people with disabilities, and approximately a quarter supports low-income children and their parents, making these groups particularly vulnerable to Medicaid spending cuts.
Several decades of research show a wide range of positive impacts of past Medicaid coverage expansions. After Medicaid expansions in the 1990s, for example, the uninsurance rate decreased by approximately 11 percentage points to 12 percentage points for low-income children and their parents; it also dropped by 3 percentage points to 5 percentage points for low-income adults after the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act of 2010. These expansions also reduced the probability of personal bankruptcy by 8% and the amount of debt collection balances by an average of $1,140.
If the House Committee on Energy and Commerce turns to Medicaid to satisfy their obligation to cut spending by $880 billion over 10 years, it would reverse these improvements in the well-being of low-income Americans.
In terms of health outcomes, Medicaid expansions have reduced infant mortality by 8.5%, the incidence of low birth weight by 2.6% to 5%, and teen mortality, too. Research even shows that Medicaid coverage for children has positive health effects into adulthood, reducing the presence of chronic conditions later in life by 0.03 standard deviations. Even the health of second-generation children—that is, the offspring of those exposed to Medicaid in utero—has been shown to be positively affected.
Medicaid coverage for children also improves non-health outcomes later in life. For instance, Medicaid expansions to cover children reduced the probability of being incarcerated by 5% and improved high school graduation rates and adult income—which, together, result in higher taxes paid in adulthood. In fact, research shows that a large fraction, including possibly the entire amount, of the cost of child Medicaid coverage is recaptured by the government in terms of higher taxes paid as adults.
If the House Committee on Energy and Commerce turns to Medicaid to satisfy their obligation to cut spending by $880 billion over 10 years, it would reverse these improvements in the well-being of low-income Americans.
The Impact of Cutting Nutrition Assistance
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a joint-run federal and state program that covers 40 million low-income U.S. families per month, with each state setting eligibility requirements based on resource or income constraints of applicants. It is by far the largest spending outlay for the House Committee on Agriculture, with federal spending totaling approximately $112 billion in 2023. As a result, funding for the program is at risk as the committee looks for ways to achieve its target of $230 billion in cuts over 10 years.
Research shows that not only does nutrition assistance dramatically reduce food insecurity—by 12% to 30%—but it also has large benefits for the health, education, and long-term well-being of children in SNAP families. For example, SNAP benefits lower the probability of having a low birth-weight child by 5% to 11% and improve standardized test scores in both reading and math by about 2% of a standard deviation. The long-run impacts of receiving SNAP benefits as a child include a 3% of a standard deviation improvement in economic self-sufficiency, a 1.2-year increase in life expectancy, and a 0.5 percentage point decrease in the probability of being incarcerated.
As a result, a decision by the House Committee on Agriculture to reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program risks increased food insecurity in the short run, while also risking long-term effects for health, education, and economic outcomes of low-income U.S. children.
The Impact of Cutting Housing Assistance
The budget resolution requires the House Committee on Financial Services, which oversees housing assistance programs, to reduce spending by $1 billion over the next 10 years. Federal spending on housing assistance was $67 billion in 2023, with $32.1 billion going toward the Housing Choice Voucher program that provides subsidies for very low-income families to find housing in the private market.
Unaffordable housing is already a serious and well-known issue in the United States, with even minimally adequate housing out of reach for millions of people. Housing vouchers have been shown to reduce the percent of income paid on rent from 58% to 27%, which is within the general definition of affordable housing (no more than 30% of family income). By relieving the financial strain of high housing costs, research shows that the housing assistance program has positive effects in other dimensions as well. Housing vouchers reduce parental stress by 7% and hypertension by 50%, as well as reducing behavioral problems in children and increasing child test scores in school.
If the House Committee on Financial Services decides to reduce spending on housing assistance, many low-income families would not be able to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing, which would have a negative impact on the overall well-being of parents and children alike.
Conclusion
A number of large social programs that provide support to millions of Americans may get cut as a result of the House-passed budget resolution, with Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and housing assistance particularly at risk. This would have a profound negative impact on the health, education, and financial stability of many low-income Americans—those who need this assistance the most.
Members of these House committees must carefully consider the benefits that these programs deliver to U.S. families before making decisions about where and how to make the required spending cuts. There are no doubt inefficiencies in social programs, just as in all government programs. But across-the-board cuts of this magnitude would inevitably hurt the vulnerable groups receiving these benefits across the United States.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Inflation Numbers Don't Alter Fears That Trump Has US Economy 'Barreling Toward Recession'
"Instead of trying to lower the cost of living, he's doubling down on his plans to give massive tax breaks to billionaires and giant corporations," said one Trump critic.
Mar 12, 2025
As the U.S. Department of Labor released its monthly consumer price index report on Wednesday, President Donald Trump's new tariffs for steel and aluminum imports took effect, highlighting his threat to the economy and working-class Americans.
The CPI, "a key gauge of inflation, showed that prices rose by 2.8% in February from a year earlier, driven by price relief from airfares and gas," The Washington Postreported. "That was cooler than the 3% annual gain reported for January and an unexpected signal of progress in combating high inflation."
While gasoline prices fell 1.0% and airline fares dropped 4%, the cost of food and shelter rose 0.2% and 0.3% respectively. The bird flu continued to drive up egg prices, which jumped 10.4%. The report adds, "Indexes that increased over the month include medical care, used cars and trucks, household furnishings and operations, recreation, apparel, and personal care."
The White House celebrated the inflation data, but economists were quick to point out that the numbers don't account for the latest developments in Trump's trade war: the new tariffs taking effect on Wednesday—after chaos-causing mixed messages from the president on Tuesday—and Canada and Europe's swift retaliatory measures.
"It's a classic head fake," Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, told the Post. "Going forward, tariffs are going to increase the costs of manufacturing in general and autos in particular."
Chris Low, chief economist at FHN Financial, similarly toldReuters that "trade wars are expected to raise prices in future inflation reports," though he also said the odds that the Federal Reserve can cut interest rates "again this year once the smoke from the tariff back-and-forth clears increased today nonetheless."
Trump's trade policies and other recent decisions, including letting billionaire Elon Musk gut the federal government, have elevated fears of a recession—which one economist suggested naming after the president—and even sparked speculation that he is tanking the economy on purpose.
In a Wednesday statement about the CPI report, Groundwork Collaborative chief of policy and advocacy Alex Jacquez said that "while families are still struggling to put food on the table and a roof over their head, the administration's response is that they should raise their own chickens in their backyards."
"Every economic indicator suggests that President Trump has us barreling toward a recession and stagflation. But instead of trying to lower the cost of living, he's doubling down on his plans to give massive tax breaks to billionaires and giant corporations," Jacquez added, referring to congressional Republicans' efforts to send Trump legislation that would fund tax giveaways by slashing Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
In addition to Jacquez's comments, Groundwork and Data for Progress also released a poll showing that over a fifth of U.S. voters across the political spectrum are most frustrated with rising grocery costs. Another 10% are most frustrated with high bills for utilities like electricity, gas, and water. They were followed by around voters frustrated with out-of-pocket healthcare costs, rent or mortgage, or health insurance premiums.
Groundwork Collaborative warned that "Trump's threat of new tariffs risks making the housing crisis worse. By driving up the cost of construction materials, his trade war with Canada could shrink the supply of new housing, keeping overall prices high. That, in turn, forces the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates elevated, making mortgages more expensive."
The think tank also stressed that the Trump administration is "destroying affordable healthcare" by fighting to cut Medicaid and Medicare, reinstate work requirements, and limit Affordable Care Act enrollment; "raising energy bills" by freezing funds for clean energy projects while advocating for planet-wrecking fossil fuels; and "making groceries more unaffordable" by pushing SNAP cuts "instead of tackling corporate price gouging and market consolidation in the food industry."
Food & Water Watch similarly responded to the new CPI data by calling out failures to crack down on corporate price gouging—as detailed in the group's report from last week titled, The Rotten Egg Oligarchy.
"Record-high egg prices have everything to do with corporate greed," Food & Water Watch research director Amanda Starbuck said Wednesday. "While skyrocketing prices transform eggs into a luxury item, the food monopolies are seeing green. President Trump needs to get serious about lowering American food prices—starting with cracking down on the food monopolies exploiting the worsening bird flu crisis for profit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Well, That Was Quick: Trump's Total Betrayal of Working People Is Now Complete
Think the House GOP's budget bill endorsed by the president is harmful to low-income families, working people, and the overall health of our society? You probably don't know even the half of it.
Feb 26, 2025
The House Republican budget passed Tuesday night calls for massive cuts in health coverage, food assistance, and help paying for college, among some other areas, to pay for huge tax giveaways for wealthy households and businesses. This betrays President Trump’s campaign promises to protect families who struggle financially, as well as his specific pledge to not cut Medicaid, which provides health coverage for 72 million people. While raising costs for families and increasing both poverty and the number of people without health coverage, the budget would swell deficits — all to further Republicans’ expensive and skewed tax agenda.
Both the House and Senate budgets significantly miss the mark on what should be their basic goals: lowering costs, increasing opportunity, and responsibly addressing our nation’s long-term priorities, including reducing future economic risks associated with high deficits. But the enormity of program cuts called for by the House budget stand as a singular threat to the well-being of people in every state, city, and rural community, threatening to take away their health coverage, make health care more expensive, and make it harder to afford food and college.
The Senate should reject the House cuts both now and if Congress ultimately moves ahead with a second budget plan and reconciliation bill this year.
The quick math on the House budget shows a stark equation: the cost of extending tax cuts for households with incomes in the top 1 percent — $1.1 trillion through 2034 — equals roughly the same amount as the proposed potential cuts for health coverage under Medicaid and food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The House Republican budget’s path of higher costs for families, more people without health coverage, increased poverty and hardship, and higher debt — all in service to tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable business interests — is the wrong direction for our nation.
Under what set of values does a budget target those who struggle to pay their bills for severe cuts, while giving an annual tax cut averaging $62,000 for those who make $743,000 or more a year? The tax cut for these wealthy households is greater than the annual family incomes for most of the 72 million people — 1 in 5 people in the U.S. — who have health coverage through Medicaid. And the $62,000 figure doesn’t account for the likelihood that this budget would shower large corporations with more tax breaks, given that it allocates $900 billion more than extending the existing tax cuts would cost.
The enormous cuts this budget calls for would increase costs, hardship, and poverty for individuals and families across the country. To be clear, the specific proposals that House Republicans have been considering for weeks to make these program cuts are largely not about curbing fraud and abuse, as some claim. For example, proposals to cap federal funding, shift costs to states, or impose harsh work requirements that trip people up with red tape are aimed at cutting health coverage and food assistance for honest people who need help, not reducing fraud.
And the impact of these cuts could be grave: think of a person who loses health coverage through Medicaid and can’t get cancer treatment, an older and frail adult who loses the home-based care they need to stay out of an institution, a young adult who can’t get insulin to control their diabetes, a parent who skips meals so their children can eat, or an older worker who loses their job and has no way to buy groceries. Make no mistake, these cuts would affect people in every state and of all races and ethnicities. At the same time, the impacts would often be especially severe in poorer states with less ability to fill in for federal cuts and among Black, Latino, and Indigenous people and people in rural communities, who have lower incomes and thus are more likely to qualify for food assistance and health coverage.
The House budget would require the Energy and Commerce Committee to cut at least $880 billion; the Agriculture Committee to cut at least $230 billion; the Education and Workforce Committee to cut at least $330 billion; and other committees to also cut programs to reach a cumulative target of at least $1.5 trillion in cuts through 2034. The magnitude of these reductions would force congressional committees to make enormous cuts in Medicaid, SNAP, student loan assistance and other vital sources of support when they develop the “reconciliation” spending and tax bill that follows the budget resolution.
But as massive as these cuts are, they don’t show the full picture of the overall program cuts that the House budget may generate. The committee targets are minimums or “floors” — meaning the committees must cut at least that amount and may cut more. And a provision included by the House Budget Committee during its consideration of the resolution pushes the committees to cut more, by requiring the overall level of program cuts to reach $2 trillion to retain the full $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.
Beyond this budget’s basic effects of taking away health, food, and other vital assistance from people who struggle to afford the basics and making student loans more expensive to partially offset tax cuts for the wealthy, it would have at least three other harmful impacts.
First, the House budget resolution and the proposals House Republicans are considering could result in enormous cost shifts to state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, which are already facing tougher fiscal conditions than in recent years. For example, some of the proposed cuts in Medicaid and SNAP would force states to pick up a much larger share of the programs’ costs or leave people without needed help. In reality, states will not make up for all or even most of the federal cuts, and families will lose health coverage and food assistance.
Second, while this budget aims to extend all of the tax cuts skewed to the top, it fails to call for extending a tax cut that is well targeted to people who need it: the improved premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. Failure to extend this tax cut would raise health care premiums for more than 20 million people, including at least 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers.
And third, even with the budget’s huge cuts in assistance, and the suffering those cuts would inflict on individuals and families, it would still increase our nation’s debt because of the enormous cost of its tax cuts. When you strip away this budget’s fuzzy math with its $2.6 trillion macroeconomic gimmick — which is far beyond expert organizations’ estimates (including estimates of conservative organizations) of possible economic effects from extending the tax cuts from President Trump’s first term and enacting potential new tax cuts — the federal debt under the House budget would increase over the next ten years compared to Congressional Budget Office projections of current law.
Even with the budget calling for a $4 trillion increase in the statutory debt limit, we calculate this limit would be reached in November 2026, only 21 months from now, under the policies assumed under this budget.
The House Republican budget’s path of higher costs for families, more people without health coverage, increased poverty and hardship, and higher debt — all in service to tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable business interests — is the wrong direction for our nation. It is also directly at odds with the recent election in which so many people expressed concern about their ability to afford food, housing, health care, and other necessities — and at odds with the promises made to them by President Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular