Hard choices face Kentucky Republican tasked with recommending Medicaid cuts
A pro-Medicaid message lights up the Capitol grounds as a U.S. House committee chaired by Kentuckian Brett Guthrie prepares this week to recommend budget savings that could affect the program that pays for almost 1.5 million Kentuckians' health care, May 7, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo byfor Caring Across Generations)
As U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie prepares to lead a debate on the future of Medicaid, his home state of Kentucky has more at stake than most.
Guthrie, R-Bowling Green, is chairman of a House committee that on Tuesday is set to start proposing $880 billion in federal budget savings over the next 10 years. Guthrie's assignment will be impossible, experts say, without cutting the federal-state program that pays for almost 1 in 3 Kentuckians' health care.
'Medicaid has become important to local economies throughout the state and a key pathway to health care for many Kentuckians,' says the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce in a statement last week that also mentions the Chamber's 'long voiced concerns about the impact of rising Medicaid costs on Kentucky's finances.'
'Efforts to control Medicaid spending will be necessary,' says the pro-business group whose top recent priority has been continuing to lower Kentucky's income tax. 'Policymakers, however, will need to take a balanced approach with input from key stakeholders.'
Guthrie, a West Point graduate and former state legislator, is not publicly discussing specifics ahead of the markup, a spokesperson for the committee said Friday.
'Chairman Guthrie and Energy and Commerce Republicans are ready to strengthen, secure, and sustain Medicaid for generations to come and for the Americans the program was intended to serve,' said Matt VanHyfte, the director of communications for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Sounding a common GOP theme, he said Medicaid was intended 'to assist the 'traditional population' which are expectant mothers, children, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities.'
Medicaid was expanded beyond that traditional role in 2010 when Congress — with no Republican votes — enacted the Affordable Care Act, a law that became known as Obamacare.
By then the number of uninsured had topped 46 million, nearing 1 in 5 Americans; medical bills were increasingly pushing sick people into bankruptcy as hospitals shifted costs onto the dwindling share of insured patients.
District of Columbia 38%
Alaska 36%
New Mexico 36%
California 35%
New York 34%
Louisiana 34%
Kentucky 31%
Oregon 31%
Hawaii 29%
West Virginia 29%
50 states and D.C. 24%
Source: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
Under the Medicaid expansion, the federal government offered to pay 100% of the costs for state Medicaid programs to begin covering low-income, able-bodied adults who can't afford or who lack access to private health insurance.
Kentucky, a poor state with lots of sick people, has aggressively embraced the new option, and that has 'changed the dynamics considerably,' says Mark Birdwhistell, an expert on Medicaid and the University of Kentucky's senior vice president for health and public policy.
The Medicaid expansion has been 'a great benefit to the health care delivery system at the University of Kentucky and all over Kentucky, particularly Southeastern Kentucky,' Birdwhistell told the Lantern. 'It's been a salvation for small rural hospitals in Eastern Kentucky and good for health outcomes as well,' Birdwhistell said.
The rate of uninsured Kentuckians fell from 14.4% in 2013 to 6.1% in 2015, the year after the Medicaid expansion took effect. In 2023, 5.6% of Kentuckians' were uninsured compared to 8% of the U.S. population.
Birdwhistell has been spending a lot of time in Washington sharing his knowledge with Kentucky's congressional delegation and with staff of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which oversees Medicaid, Medicare and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
In an interview with the Lantern, Birdwhistell discussed some of the Medicaid proposals the Republicans who control Congress are considering as they look for savings to pay for continuing tax cuts enacted in 2017 during President Donald Trump's first term.
The proposal that would be the 'most problematic' for Kentucky, Birdwhistell said, is one to lower the matching funds the federal government pays for the Medicaid expansion. After paying 100% of the expansion for a few years, the federal match was lowered to 90%, leaving states to pick up 10% of the expansion cost.
By contrast, the federal government picks up 71% of the cost of insuring Kentucky's traditional Medicaid population. (Kentucky receives a higher federal match than most states because it's based on a state's per capita income and Kentucky's is comparatively low.) Of Kentucky's $19 billion Medicaid budget, almost $15 billion comes from the federal government and about $4 billion from state sources.
If Congress decides to lower the expansion match to the lower share for the rest of the program, Kentucky would have to provide an additional $1.4 billion to continue covering the almost 500,000 people in the expansion, according to an estimate by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. 'It would be difficult for the General Assembly to come up with that amount of money,' said Birdwhistell.
Birdwhistell said he understands why some members of Congress question the more generous federal match for the Medicaid expansion, but said, 'In Kentucky, in my opinion, the benefits outweigh the downside.'
Another option being floated would impose per capita caps on federal funding for Medicaid, in essence a block grant based on the size of the covered population, which Birdwhistell said would likely cause negative impacts for the traditional Medicaid population especially the disabled and frail elderly, new mothers and babies who need neonatal intensive care.
Under a cap, some patients could be denied care if their costs exceeded a designated amount, he said, making it difficult to administer and producing 'negative policy outcomes.'
If a per capita cap is the Republicans' chosen alternative, Birdwhistell said it would be better to apply it to the expansion population who are healthier, younger and cheaper to insure.
Among the almost 1 million Kentuckians covered by traditional Medicaid is Caden Plemons, 19, of Bowling Green. He has Down Syndrome and autism and is 'primarily nonverbal,' says his mother Rheanna Plemons who worries lawmakers will subject Medicaid to 'broad, sweeping cuts, without doing any research to ensure that it's not decreasing the standard of care for individuals with intellectual disabilities.'
Caden also receives services through Kentucky Medicaid's Michell P. waiver, which helps people who have intellectual disabilities live more independently. Caden's community living supports include staff to help him with daily tasks like dressing and going to appointments and getting out to enjoy go carts and other activities.
'He's thriving in the community because of the services that we have received over the last 19 years,' Plemons said.
Caden's waiver also covers respite care so Plemons and her husband can 'take a break every now and then.'
'Sometimes people don't realize: if you have a child who has a severe disability, such as my child, that's 24 hours a day care, seven days a week,' Plemons said. 'I work. My husband works full time. So if we want to take a break, even to go out to have dinner with just the two of us, then somebody's got to be there with Caden, even though he's 19 years old.'
Another option under consideration for trimming Medicaid costs is a work requirement. Birdwhistell estimates that more than half of able-bodied Kentuckians covered by Medicaid — the working poor — already hold low-wage jobs. The income limit for most working-age adults to qualify for Medicaid is 138% of the federal poverty level. That works out to $44,367 a year for a family of four which 'in some areas of the state is quite a few people,' said Birdwhistell.
Enforcing a Medicaid work requirement would require funding an expanded bureaucracy to keep up with new reporting demands and insure compliance, Birdwhistell said.
The Republican-dominated Kentucky legislature this year enacted a Medicaid work requirement that will be up to Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear's administration to bring online.
Critics view work requirements as a smokescreen for using red tape to push people off the Medicaid rolls.
Megan Rorex, a licensed clinical social worker and therapist in Bowling Green, predicts new reporting demands would snag her Medicaid-covered clients. Many of them work multiple part-time jobs, often in the restaurant industry, and would lack the time or bandwidth to keep up with an additional layer of paperwork in a program that she considers already overcomplicated. 'Any bureaucratic policy that's unnecessary is a problem to navigate if you're already working multiple jobs. It adds another layer of stigma and stress,' she said.
Some Republicans, including Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget and an author of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 agenda for the second Trump administration, want to limit states' use of levies on health care providers — called provider taxes — to leverage higher Medicaid funding from the federal government.
Kentucky levies a number of provider taxes that bring additional federal Medicaid funds into the state and pay for state directed payments that increase hospitals' Medicaid compensation to levels that on average are what private insurers would pay for the same services.
So far, congressional discussion has focused on capping provider taxes at 5% of hospital patient revenue which would not affect Kentucky because provider tax rates here are below 5%, Birdwhistell said.
Kentucky is using these payments to incentivize quality improvements, such as more frequent well-child visits and screenings for disease. Hospitals must meet the quality objectives to qualify for the extra funding, which Birdwhistell says has been 'extremely successful' in transforming UK Healthcare into a 'value-based organization.' He said he's advising federal officials that Kentucky's use of provider taxes to improve quality are models worth replicating in other states.
A complaint voiced by some Republican state lawmakers during this year's session in Frankfort is that Medicaid spending increases each year — almost $2.6 billion budgeted from Kentucky's General Fund in fiscal year 2024 — without producing improvements in health outcomes
Birdwhistell said it takes a long time to realize the return on investment in health care. 'These are generational issues. It takes a person's lifetime before you can say what the savings were.'
And Kentuckians are inching out of the nation's basement on some health indicators.
In 2024, Kentucky advanced to 41st among the 50 states — up from 45th in 2016-2021 — in America's Health Rankings, an annual study by the United Healthcare Foundation based on a variety of health, behavioral and socioeconomic metrics.
On the upside,
The rate of colorectal screenings in Kentucky rose from 20th nationally in 2022 to 10th in 2024.
Kentucky's obesity rank improved from 48th in 2022 to 40th in 2023.
And Kentucky's drug-related deaths declined from 47th highest among the states in 2022 to 45th in 2024.
Kentucky ranked 16th nationally in availability of primary care providers last year, down from 11th in 2023.
The study also identifies plenty of room for improvement. Kentucky ranked 49th for adults with multiple chronic conditions in 2023 and 45th for percentage of households experiencing food insecurity in 2024.
While Guthrie's role in potential Medicaid cuts is not expected to hurt his chances next year for reelection to a 10th term, Republicans representing swing districts in Congress could face a voter backlash, and some are refusing to vote for Medicaid rollbacks pushed by more conservative colleagues. Republicans' narrow margin in the House means even a few defectors could doom budget provisions, while a few midterm defeats next year could give Democrats control of the chamber.
Candidate Trump promised to protect Medicaid, and the White House reiterated that promise in March, but Trump also is urging Congress to enact the House budget blueprint that he calls the 'big beautiful bill' — goals that appear to be in conflict.
Guthrie will be a 'key player,' says Birdwhistell, as his committee works this week to move the House budget proposal closer to a vote by the full House.
Tres Watson, a former spokesperson for the Republican Party of Kentucky, echoed the talking point that Guthrie and many Republicans are working to return Medicaid to its original, pre-Affordable Care Act, 'reining in what many Republicans view as out of control entitlement spending, getting away from what was originally intended to be … a trampoline, not a mattress,' Watson said.
Kentucky's top Democrat, Gov. Andy Beshear, has joined Democratic governors in calling on Congress to protect Medicaid funding. In a Democratic Governors Association press call last week, Beshear, the group's vice chair, told reporters that 'gutting Medicaid would impact families in a substantial way.' He said half of Kentucky children and 70% of long-term care costs in Kentucky are covered by Medicaid.
'Massive cuts to Medicaid is an attack on rural America, and if they do it, these Republican representatives and senators are saying they don't believe that the people of rural America deserve the same access to health care as those in urban America,' Beshear said. 'Certainly it would devastate my state, but it would devastate so many of our communities in every single state across the United States.'
The fate of rural hospitals is bound to weigh on Republicans who were sent to Washington from red states. Even if hospitals are not forced to close, Medicaid cuts could force hospitals to lose services, says Ben Chandler, who retired last year as president and CEO of the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky. Before that he was Kentucky attorney general and auditor and represented the state's 6th Congressional District from 2004 to 2013.
For Chandler the debate highlights the need for broad reform that would move the U.S. away from relying on employers to provide health coverage through a for-profit insurance industry that wields enormous influence on Capitol Hill.
'It's ridiculous we don't have Medicare for all or whatever you want to call it,' said Chandler who voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010 because a proposal for a government-run 'public option' health insurance plan was removed from the bill as a concession to the insurance industry and its supporters.
Chandler called the U.S. system 'accidental,' born of World War II wage caps that inspired employers to compete for workers by offering a hospitalization benefit.
The U.S. spends twice as much on health care per capita as other large, wealthy nations while U.S. health outcomes are far worse than those in other nations.
Says Chandler, 'It's the only system in the world like it.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
35 minutes ago
- USA Today
Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned
Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Disputes inside the GOP about parts of Trump's major tax bill threaten approval in the Senate and past compromises reached by the Republican-led House. Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk 'disappointed' with Trump's tax bill Elon Musk told CBS he is 'disappointed' with President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill. Republicans begin debate in the narrowly divided Senate with factions seeking to increase spending cuts or curbing tax breaks, which threaten the compromise needed for approval back in the House. Trump's billionaire adviser Elon Musk complicated the debate by urging lawmakers to kill the bill. Congressional leaders insist approval is still possible despite the fissures in the narrow Republican majorities in each chamber and the unified opposition of Democrats. WASHINGTON – Will President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' go bust? The second-term president's highest-priority legislation is under attack from some Senate Republicans – and from his former billionaire adviser Elon Musk – for costing too much. Complaints are also mounting from Republicans who are opposed to cutting Medicaid health insurance and other popular programs used by many Americans, especially as a way to help pay for tax breaks that would benefit some of the country's highest-income earners. With Republicans holding the slimmest of majorities in both chambers of Congress and with Democrats showing no sign of wanting to help Trump notch a major win to begin his new administration, lawmakers from Trump's own party are sounding apprehensive about threading the needle before their self-imposed July 4 deadline to get something to the president's desk for signature into law. More: Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill 'We're anxious to get to work on it," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters earlier in the week as Republicans and Musk started publicly airing their complaints about the effort. Adding to the challenge: Some of the very House GOP members who last month voted in favor of their 1,100-page version of Trump's tax and policy plan started finding faults of their own that they say meant they'd probably have been a 'no' if they had the chance to do it again. Presidents often aim high to start terms Presidents often try in their first year to build on the momentum of their elections to get major legislation approved. For Joe Biden, it was an infrastructure bill. For Barack Obama, it was overhauling healthcare insurance. For George W. Bush, it was overhauling public education. Trump leapt into action in 2025 with an unprecedented pace of executive orders: 157 through May 23. When he turned to legislation, he persuaded Republican congressional leaders to package all his priorities into one bill, rather than splitting taxes and border security into two different bills, to complete the debate in one fell swoop. More: Everything's an 'emergency': How Trump's executive order record pace is testing the courts Lawmakers often shy away from piling too much into one bill because each contentious provision spurs its own opposition. But faced with the prospect of unanimous Democratic opposition, Trump opted for a strategy that focuses on GOP priorities such as tax relief and border security while personally lobbying reluctant Republicans to stay in line. 'Americans have given us a mandate for bold and profound change,' Trump told Congress in a speech March 4. 'I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY,' he added in a social media post about three months later, on June 2. Musk opposition makes waves Trump's efforts worked in the Republican-led House, which after several days of negotiations and an all-night floor debate voted 215-214 in favor of a plan that had the full backing of the White House. Getting the measure through the Senate - even with the GOP in charge needing just a simple majority of 51 votes - is proving to be its own elusive challenge. Musk, the former head of Trump's bureaucracy-slashing Department of Government Efficiency, spent this past week unloading on the House-passed bill for spending too much money. He called the legislation "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination," and urged lawmakers to "KILL the BILL." More: The post-fight fallout from Trump-Musk battle could get even uglier While Musk's barrage ignited a war with Trump and left many Republicans cringing, deficit hawks in the GOP said they appreciated the world's richest man also pushing for deeper spending cuts from the U.S. government. "I welcome people like Elon Musk that try to hold our feet to the fire," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Missouri. "We often disappoint our voters when we don't do the cuts that we campaign on, when we're not fiscally responsible." But Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, who served in the Air Force for 30 years, said the division between Trump and Musk wasn't a good look for his party, especially when it's trying to advance the primary piece of legislation on the president's agenda. "It's just not helpful," Bacon said. "When you have division, divided teams don't perform as well." 'The opposite of conservative': Sen. Paul on bill Several pockets of Republican senators have voiced concerns about the House-passed legislation. Each group has their issue that they want addressed, and each one presents a hurdle for Trump and GOP leaders like Thune as they try to cobble together a winning 51-vote coalition that can also make it back through the House for another final vote. The Senate factions include one group seeking to cut more spending because the Congressional Budget Office said the House-passed plan would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Others are worried about cutting Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income families. And another handful of senators say they are worried about the House-passed bill rolling back renewable energy tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. "There are many of us who recognize that what came out of the House was pretty aggressive in how it seeks to wind down or phase out many of the energy tax credit provisions," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "I happen to think that we've got tax policies that are working to help advance our energy initiatives around the country, as diverse and as varied as they are. Wouldn't we want to continue those investments? 'This bill is the opposite of conservative, and we should not pass it,' added Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in a June 4 social media post that raised concerns about the nation's debt limit. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is one of the outspoken Republicans taking issue with the House-passed bill's provisions that would cut nearly $800 billion during the next decade from Medicaid and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost 7.8 million people their health insurance. "I don't want to see rural hospitals close and I don't want to see any benefits cut in my state," Hawley said. Trump and his allies contend spending cuts of $1.6 trillion are the most ever approved in a House bill and that the tax cuts will spur economic growth to offset the costs. Trump got personal this week in calling Paul's ideas 'crazy' in a social media post and said the people of Kentucky 'can't stand him.' More: Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters June 4 that few people are going to like everything in an 1,100-page bill. But the Louisiana Republican said the measure he helped craft in the House was carefully calibrated to gain wide support. "I hope everybody will evaluate that – in both parties, and everybody – and recognize, 'Wow, the benefits of this far outweigh anything that I don't like out it,'" Johnson said. Senate dropping local tax deductions would be 'radioactive': Rep. Lalota Any changes made by the Senate will force another vote in the House before the bill can become law - and that's where the math can get tricky. Republican senators are talking about tinkering with a key compromise that Trump and Johnson signed off on in the House that raised the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 for people earning less than $500,000 per year. That provision is important to GOP lawmakers from high-tax states such as California, New York and New Jersey who supported the House bill that passed through the 435-seat chamber by only a one-vote margin. More: Senate Republicans plan to amend SALT tax deduction in Trump's sweeping bill The Senate aims to cut back that provision. But Rep. Nick Lalota, R-New York, told reporters on June 4 that revisiting the tax issue "would be like digging up safely-buried radioactive waste." House members scouring through the bill they voted on weeks ago are also finding unfamiliar provisions in the version that they say they would have opposed. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said in a social media post June 3 that the Senate needs to strip out language she hadn't noticed earlier that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said he opposed a section that aims to hinder federal judges from enforcing their court orders. Trump sought the provision to prevent judges from blocking policies largely spelled out via his executive orders. Senate could drop contentious provisions House members risked supporting Even though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the Senate could drop or fail to approve contentious parts that GOP House colleagues in competitive districts already went out on a limb to support. It's happened many times before - with sizable political consequences. The concept even has a name: Getting BTU'd. That refers to a 1993 House vote on a controversial energy tax during the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency based on British thermal units. House Democrats lost 54 seats in the 1994 election – and control of the chamber for the first time in 40 years – in part because of supporting the BTU tax that the Senate never debated. John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, has said a book about such votes could be called 'Profiles in Futility.' Another example was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill which Obama supported as president that aimed to limit the emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, vehicles and other industrial sources. The Democrat-controlled House narrowly approved the measure 219-212 but the Senate never took it up. Critics said it would raise the cost of energy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit libertarian think tank that opposed the measure, counted 28 House Democrats from coal states who lost their seats in the 2010 mid-term election after voting for the bill. Fast forward to 2025 and Republicans are the ones facing a similar dynamic. Musk, who contributed about $290 million of his personal fortune to help Republicans including Trump win last November, slammed House lawmakers who voted for the president's legislative package.'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong,' Musk wrote June 3 on social media. But House Republicans who voted for the legislation, including some who also demanded deeper spending cuts when it was in their hands, said they're not worried about the package falling apart and coming back to haunt them. They say that's because they did fight for more budget cuts. "This wasn't a hard vote. It was hard going through the process to get more, and you can always do better," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina. "But look at what Donald Trump's done, the great things that are contributing to cutting the deficit." Rep. David Schweikert, R-Arizona, who represents a competitive toss-up district, noted that he's introduced multiple bills to trim federal spending. "If Mr. Musk wants to be helpful, what he should do is start to understand that those of us in a 50-50 district who have shown up with actual policy solutions that offset every penny of this bill," he said. Leaving Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force Once on June 6 that he wasn't worried about Musk and that he remained confident he'd get "tremendous support" in the Senate to pass the bill. 'I don't know of anybody who's going to vote against it," the president said, before adding: "Maybe Rand Paul." For his part, Johnson told reporters June 4 that he wasn't concerned about House Republicans losing seats in 2026. Predicting that the Senate would find the necessary votes on the president's tax bill, the speaker said he expects Americans will see the benefits of Trump's efforts before the next election. 'Am I concerned about the effect of this on the midterms? I'm not," Johnson said. "I have no concern whatsoever. I am absolutely convinced that we are going to win the midterms and grow the House majority because we are delivering for the American majority and fulfilling our campaign promises." Contributing: Reuters
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's budget bill could cut federal food assistance to 575,000 Kentuckians
More than half a million Kentuckians — including roughly 225,000 children — face the loss of or a reduction in their federal food assistance benefits under a budget bill moving through Congress supported by President Donald Trump, advocates said Friday. In addition to the proposal in Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to slash Medicaid spending by billions, the budget reconciliation bill includes historic cuts to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food assistance to low-income individuals and families. Roughly 13% of Americans — more than 41 million people — receive SNAP benefits each month. Trump's bill threatens to reduce the federal program by more than $300 billion over the next decade, putting more responsibility on states to foot the bill instead. Jessica Klein, policy associate at the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, described it as the 'largest cut, ever, to SNAP in the history of the program's existence' on a Friday press call. Supporters of the bill, including most, but not all of, Kentucky's congressional delegation, laud it as a means of carrying out Trump's agenda to eliminate 'waste, fraud and abuse' in federal resources. Millions of SNAP recipients are expected to be cleaved from the program nationwide. 'SNAP is proven to reduce hunger, improve health, reduce health care costs and support local economies. As the top farming state in the nation, our farmers' markets, groceries and food retailers have come to rely on the almost $1.3 billion spent on groceries with SNAP each year,' Klein said. One in eight Kentuckians benefits from SNAP, which translates to roughly 575,800 people. The ripple effects of the bill, which is now in the Senate, extend well beyond the direct impact on families using SNAP dollars to buy groceries each month, Klein and other food assistance advocates said Friday. In 2023, over 92.5% of Kentucky schools — about 625,000 kids — were eligible through the federal Community Eligibility Provision program. That program allows low-income students to receive free breakfast and lunch. CEP eligibility is calculated — and districts are reimbursed with federal dollars — using a formula based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced meals using the Identified Student Percentage, or ISP. The ISP is based on their family's participation in federal food assistance programs, including SNAP and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF. A reduction in the overall number of families receiving SNAP benefits means school districts eligible for the CEP program, by extension, risk losing that funding, said Leah Fagin, the food service director at Mayfield Independent School District, where roughly 90% of the student population qualifies for free or reduced meals. Even in a relatively small district like Mayfield, CEP-eligible districts can receive federal reimbursements of tens of thousands of dollars. The SNAP cuts and ripple effect to CEP eligibility will mean the districts, then 'have to absorb that cost,' she said. 'When you're looking at a school district with 10 schools with several thousand dollars in meal charges, you're looking at cutting teachers, cutting other benefits the district is able to enjoy,' Fagin said. 'I'm very concerned our legislators do not understand the critical link between SNAP and CEP eligibility,' she said. What's more, the loss of SNAP dollars uniquely threatens rural Kentucky where farming is a 'vital part' of the local economy, said Emily Foster, a farmer in Wolfe County who manages the Red River Gorge Farmers Market. Her farmers market, like others across Kentucky, accepts SNAP benefits. 'SNAP doesn't just help families put food on the table, it also strengthens our entire local food economy,' Foster said. 'Accepting SNAP expands our customer base, allowing more people to shop at the market, people who otherwise might not be able to afford fresh food.' Foster added, 'when families spend SNAP benefits at the market, that money goes directly to our local farmers, who in turn spend it at local businesses, creating a ripple effect that benefits everyone. In Eastern Kentucky, where economic opportunities can be limited, this cycle is especially important.'