Republicans are forcing Trump to touch the third rail
Considering that the country is in political crisis unseen in any of our lifetimes, it seems a little strange that the top issue being discussed among many in the media is a rehash of the story that people around former President Biden allegedly covered up that he aged demonstrably in office since we all saw that with our own eyes. Seeing as this issue will almost certainly never happen again and has no relevance for the future, it is odd that we are spending so much bandwidth discussing what feels like ancient history amid an overwhelming tsunami of critical political news.
I'm not particularly interested in the story, but for those who are, enjoy. However, I have been hearing a lot of the people who are obsessing over it repeat a devastating quote from the first debate, one which may have sealed Biden's fate. In his closing argument, Biden stumbled and inexplicably said, "We beat Medicare!" It was obviously bizarre, but in context, it was clear that he meant "we beat Pharma."
I thought of that when I heard our almost 79-year-old current president say this on his recent overseas trip:
Coincidentally, that weird comment actually referred to Big Pharma as well. It seems to be a common glitch among geriatric presidents. As it happens, both men were right — but in Trump's case, not in the way he thought he was.
Biden was referring to the provision in the Inflation Reduction Act that allowed Medicare, for the first time, to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies to lower prices for some of the most commonly prescribed medications. They succeeded in substantially lowering the price of some commonly prescribed drugs for diabetes and heart disease and were going forward with others. So far, Trump has left that in place — but he did roll back a number of other initiatives that had just started to roll out as soon as he took office.
In that speech in Saudi Arabia, for example, he was boasted about his executive order directing the big international pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices to those paid by other countries or else. His order, as with everything else he's doing, will be met with a flood of litigation that could take years to work out. Who knows if anything will ever come of it.
But Trump saying "we've cut our healthcare by 50-90%" may actually be true, although as usual, he fudged the numbers. If the provisions in the so-called one big beautiful bill Republicans in the House just passed actually make it to his desk, Trump will have gone a long way toward cutting the healthcare of many millions of Americans. And this is despite his specific, repeated promises that he would not do it. He even went up to Congress earlier this week as they were marking it up and said "don't f**k around with Medicaid."
They did. And it's going to kick millions of people off their health insurance and potentially devastate hospitals and other health care providers.
This one huge hideous bill is a monstrous attack on the poor, most of them working poor, which he plans to sell as a big gift to the Real Americans by repealing the tax on tips and offering up a $1,000 "investment account" for newborns called "Trump Accounts" (the name changed at the last minute from "MAGA Accounts" no doubt to please Dear Leader.) Meanwhile, it slashes home heating assistance that will literally leave people out in the cold, features an almost 30% cut in food assistance, reduces the subsidies for Obamacare and implements the largest cuts to Medicaid in its history. And just to really make sure people can't get ahead, they're taking away $350 billion in aid for working-class families who want to send their kids to college.
And why are they doing this? Well, they say we just have to cut spending because the budget deficit is out of control. Except they are also cutting taxes and their cuts, as usual, will benefit the wealthy much more than the pittance they throw at the feet of the poor and the middle class. They are literally robbing the poor to give to the rich.
Economist Steven Rattner explains how that shakes out in this appearance on MSNBC:
They are also exploding the deficit beyond anything we might have imagined, adding at least $3.1 trillion. The alleged deficit hawks in the House grumbled, but they went along. After all, this is a tax cut bill and they're Republicans. They may not ever get much of anything done, but if there's one thing they always do, no matter the circumstances, it is cut taxes for their rich benefactors. It's as predictable as Donald Trump winning the championship at his golf course every year. And, as former Vice President Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." It's always been just a talking point.
They usually talk big about cuts like this and then come back to Earth when they realize that many of their constituents and donors will be hit. But this time, they apparently are either resigned to losing their majority next year and want to pass as much of their sadistic policy wish list as possible before they are in the wilderness or they believe that Donald Trump really is so all-powerful that he will sweep in and save them. Or maybe they just figure they'll be able to get rich[er] and retire from all their insider trading on the financial market gyrations caused by Trump's erratic tariff policies. But their determination to turn America so toxic that the bond market is becoming very shaky and investors are starting to pull out could have some very serious unintended consequences. All that new debt they're creating is going to get mighty expensive.
Trump, for his part, has obviously given in on the Medicaid cuts. It's not like he ever really cared about any of his "populist" promises not to touch the "entitlements." They were just campaign slogans to appeal to the rubes. But it turns out that he might just be touching the real third rail. The Republicans are raising the deficit so high that it may trigger sequestration under the PAYGO act, which would require mandatory cuts to Medicare in the vicinity of half a trillion dollars.
It's possible that they'll finesse their way out of it somehow. They're just tossing aside norms and changing the rules willy nilly now whenever they need to. But if the Democrats are smart, they will make sure that the public is aware that this is now an issue because Republicans made it one with their over-the-top, budget-busting "Big Butt-Ugly Bill."
We are constantly hearing from Democrats that you have to talk about "kitchen table issues" in order to appeal to the voters. Well, the Republicans just threw a huge pile of issues, including the kitchen sink, right in the middle of the table for them to take to the country. The midterm campaign has begun.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
30 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Top US universities raced to become global campuses. Under Trump, it's becoming a liability
WASHINGTON — Three decades ago, foreign students at Harvard University accounted for just 11% of the total student body. Today, they account for 26%. Like other prestigious U.S. universities, Harvard for years has been cashing in on its global cache to recruit the world's best students. Now, the booming international enrollment has left colleges vulnerable to a new line of attack from President Donald Trump. The president has begun to use his control over the nation's borders as leverage in his fight to reshape American higher education. Trump's latest salvo against Harvard uses a broad federal law to bar foreign students from entering the country to attend the campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His order applies only to Harvard, but it poses a threat to other universities his administration has targeted as hotbeds of liberalism in need of reform. It's rattling campuses under federal scrutiny, including Columbia University , where foreign students make up 40% of the campus. As the Trump administration stepped up reviews of new student visas last week, a group of Columbia faculty and alumni raised concerns over Trump's gatekeeping powers. 'Columbia's exposure to this 'stroke of pen' risk is uniquely high,' the Stand Columbia Society wrote in a newsletter. People from other countries made up about 6% of all college students in the U.S. in 2023, but they accounted for 27% of the eight schools in the Ivy League, according to an Associated Press analysis of Education Department data. Columbia's 40% was the largest concentration, followed by Harvard and Cornell at about 25%. Brown University had the smallest share at 20%. Other highly selective private universities have seen similar trends, including at Northeastern University and New York University, which each saw foreign enrollment double between 2013 and 2023. Growth at public universities has been more muted. Even at the 50 most selective public schools, foreign students account for about 11% of the student body. America's universities have been widening their doors to foreign students for decades, but the numbers shot upward starting around 2008, as Chinese students came to U.S. universities in rising numbers. It was part of a 'gold rush' in higher education, said William Brustein, who orchestrated the international expansion of several universities. 'Whether you were private or you were public, you had to be out in front in terms of being able to claim you were the most global university,' said Brustein, who led efforts at Ohio State University and West Virginia University. The race was driven in part by economics, he said. Foreign students typically aren't eligible for financial aid, and at some schools they pay two or three times the tuition rate charged to U.S. students. Colleges also were eyeing global rankings that gave schools a boost if they recruited larger numbers of foreign students and scholars, he said. But the expansion wasn't equal across all types of colleges — public universities often face pressure from state lawmakers to limit foreign enrollment and keep more seats open for state residents. Private universities don't face that pressure, and many aggressively recruited foreign students as their numbers of U.S. students stayed flat. The college-going rate among American students has changed little for decades, and some have been turned off on college by the rising costs and student debt loads. Proponents of international exchange say foreign students pour billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, and many go on to support the nation's tech industry and other fields in need of skilled workers. Most international students study the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and math. In the Ivy League, most international growth has been at the graduate level, while undergraduate numbers have seen more modest increases. Foreign graduate students make up more than half the students at Harvard's government and design schools, along with five of Columbia's schools. The Ivy League has been able to outpace other schools in large part because of its reputation, Brustein said. He recalls trips to China and India, where he spoke with families that could recite where each Ivy League school sat in world rankings. 'That was the golden calf for these families. They really thought, 'If we could just get into these schools, the rest of our lives would be on easy street,'' he said. Last week, Trump said he thought Harvard should cap its foreign students to about 15%. 'We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can't get in because we have foreign students there,' Trump said at a news conference. The university called Trump's latest action banning entry into the country to attend Harvard 'yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights.' In a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's previous attempt to block international students at Harvard, the university said its foreign student population was the result of 'a painstaking, decades-long project' to attract the most qualified international students. Losing access to student visas would immediately harm the school's mission and reputation, it said. 'In our interconnected global economy,' the school said, 'a university that cannot welcome students from all corners of the world is at a competitive disadvantage.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Business Insider
31 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."
Epoch Times
32 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
House Democrats Fall Short in Subpoenaing Elon Musk in 20–21 Vote
House Democrats on Thursday couldn't get enough votes to issue a subpoena to tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to testify before Congress. The House Oversight Committee rejected the Democrats' request for Musk, a Trump adviser and former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to appear before lawmakers in a 20–21 vote.
