Advertisement

Column: The GOP attack on the safety net and middle-class programs begins to take shape

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.)
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), right, joined by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), while he was trying to shepherd a spending bill to enactment in December over Donald Trump’s opposition. Can he keep his narrow majority together during budget talks?
(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)
Share via

No one can be surprised that Republicans are hoping to exploit their Washington trifecta — the White House and majority control of the House and Senate — by implementing vast federal budget cuts in order to save their 2017 tax cuts from expiration.

Now we’re beginning to see some meat on the bare bones of GOP policies, thanks to a “menu” of fiscal policy reforms recently leaked to Politico.

The one-page document, which Politico reports was produced by the House Budget Committee chaired by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), lists dozens of cutbacks adding up to supposed savings of as much as $5.7 trillion over 10 years.

Advertisement

We ought to be able to unleash growth through tax cuts ... and we ought to be able to bend the spending curve.

— House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas)

The primary near-term goal appears to be staving off the expiration next year of the 2017 tax cuts, which disproportionately benefited corporations and the wealthy.

Many of these proposals are vague, presumably deliberately, though the drafters surely know the details. The ideas tend to match proposals that have been advanced by congressional Republicans in the past, and include some that were implemented by the first Trump administration and reversed or dropped by the Biden White House.

Advertisement

The main targets, moreover, are programs that the GOP has advocated paring back or eliminating for years, such as Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and food stamps. Cuts in some programs are described in the “menu” under misleading headings.

Proposals that would cut Medicaid benefits or eligibility for thousands of Americans are titled “Making Medicaid Work for the Most Vulnerable.” A sheaf of proposals to raise costs for Obamacare enrollees comes under the anodyne heading, “Reimagining the Affordable Care Act.”

Advertisement

Arrington hasn’t commented publicly on the leaked document. His committee hasn’t responded to my request for comment. But he has made his name as a budget hawk: “We ought to be able to unleash growth through tax cuts,” he told the Wall Street Journal after the November election, “and we ought to be able to bend the spending curve.”

How many of these proposals can actually be enacted by the current Congress is unclear, since the GOP majority is narrow in the Senate and razor-thin in the House. Some proposals could hit hard in states and districts represented by Republicans. But the theme of the proposals is unmistakable — safety net programs and several Biden initiatives are on the chopping block.

Rep. Mike Lee and Elon Musk put their heads together to craft an attack on Social Security utterly devoid of truth.

Let’s examine some of the lowlights:

Medicaid: Hostility to this federal-state program, which provides healthcare for low-income households, is a Republican hobbyhorse.

The proposal would change Medicaid into a block-grant program that provides federal assistance to states based on their population. As I’ve reported in the past — including when Trump proposed the change during his first campaign for office — block grants are just budget cuts in disguise. They’re invariably aimed at antipoverty programs.

Block-granting Medicaid would sap states’ ability to respond to changing conditions driving up healthcare spending, such as the COVID pandemic. The committee asserts that this change would yield as much as $918 billion in savings over 10 years. That’s the equivalent of about 15% of the federal share of Medicaid spending — potentially a major hit to state budgets.

The committee also advocates paring back the federal share of Medicaid spending on enrollees signed up under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, which brought childless low-income adults into the program, to the percentage paid under traditional Medicaid. The ACA set the federal share for Medicaid expansion at 90% of costs.

Advertisement

The GOP’s far-right wing want to use a shutdown threat to take aim at school funding, children’s healthcare and food, housing and heating assistance. What’s to like?

The federal share in traditional Medicaid averages about 69% but varies by state, from a minimum of about 60% to a maximum of 83%. So this change, which the committee pegs at a 10-year savings of $690 billion, would place a further strain on state budgets. The proposal also would reduce the federal share of Medicaid administrative expenses, set by law at no less than 50%.

The committee also advocates imposing work requirements on Medicaid recipients. It claims that this would save $120 billion over a decade, but that could be achieved only by throwing thousands of enrollees out of the program. We know this because that’s exactly what happened when Arkansas tried it during the first Trump term.

The work rules did nothing to reduce joblessness, exacerbated a healthcare crisis, and raised administrative costs for the state. The Arkansas program was overturned by a federal judge, who also blocked other red states from proceeding. The Republican love for this policy despite ample evidence of its failure remains a mystery.

Public assistance: Republican attacks on the most economically vulnerable Americans continue apace. The committee proposes reducing federal spending on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the federal-state program generally described as “welfare,” by 10%, to produce $15 billion in savings over a decade.

This is nothing but a cruel hit on America’s most desperate households. In no state do TANF benefits reach even 60% of the poverty level for a family of three. In 17 states — mostly those with large Black populations — they’re below 20% of the poverty level. In all but 11 states including California, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, TANF benefits were eroded by inflation between 1996 and 2023, sometimes by more than half.

A conservative think tank’s estimate of the effect of Trump’s and Harris’ policies shows that a single-minded concern with the federal deficit makes no sense

A related proposal would reinstate the tightened standards for the “public charge” rule instituted in the first Trump term. This malevolent policy was aimed at immigrants by denying them entry or improvement in their immigration status if they were thought likely to access public assistance programs.

Advertisement

Trump added Medicaid and other noncash programs to the traditional roster of cash programs such as food stamps as signs the recipients would become a public charge.

As then-California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra noted at the time, the change was designed not only to throw millions of people out of public assistance programs, but also to have a chilling effect that would keep people who need healthcare and other help from seeking it. The Trump rule succeeded in doing so, according to an analysis by KFF; it was rescinded by Biden.

The menu lists “SNAP reforms” as the source of $22 billion in savings over a decade. It doesn’t specify the “reforms” sought in the food stmp program, but simple math suggests that they would involve either throwing people out of the program or reducing benefits, which currently average $6-$7 a day per person.

The Biden Agenda: Other elements of the GOP menu take aim at key initiatives passed under Biden, including many that had bipartisan support.

It proposes dropping the green-energy provisions of the 2021 infrastructure bill, which included funding to modernize the nation’s public transit systems, building a national network of electric vehicle chargers and converting thousands of school buses to electric energy. The committee claims this would save $300 billion over 10 years, but since much of this spending is going to red states and conservative districts, rescinding it might be a tough lift for the GOP.

The coming emergencies: The committee proposes to place restrictions on emergency spending — limiting the spending to the “recent average” to produce $500 billion in savings over a decade. This sounds like the elevation of hope over reality, since recent emergencies include not only the California fires, but tropical storms that leveled whole communities from Florida and Louisiana to Tennessee, North Carolina and Pennsylvania last year. Mother Nature, plainly, doesn’t pay much attention to budgetary posturing. Global warming is likely to raise the cost of emergency relief, not reduce it.

Advertisement

Politics as well as natural conditions will get in the way of these policies’ implementation. But it’s worth knowing what the Republicans aspire to achieve, and assessing their intentions.

Advertisement