Letters to the Editor: From Medicaid to the courts, readers raise concerns about Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
To the editor: As Congress considers a sweeping legislative package that includes deep cuts to Medicaid, Californians should pay close attention ('White House pushes for quick approval of 'big, beautiful bill,' but key hurdles remain,' May 19). The Congressional Budget Office estimates that proposed changes would strip health coverage from at least 7.6 million Americans by 2034, a devastating blow to families already facing serious health challenges.
Thankfully, Reps. Young Kim and David Valadao took a strong stance, writing to House leadership, 'We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.' This statement is welcome news to the millions of Californians who rely on Medicaid, including those battling chronic diseases such as cancer or liver disease.
Proposed cuts, including work requirements, create unnecessary red tape and increase wasteful administrative spending. In fact, 92% of working-age individuals with Medicaid coverage are already working or are physically unable to work due to chronic illness or disability. As the executive director of the Liver Coalition of California, I am joining with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network to demand that our representatives continue to vote against cuts to Medicaid in any form. Healthcare should not be used as a bargaining chip.
Scott Suckow, San Diego
..
To the editor: According to Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, hidden in President Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget bill is a provision that will prohibit any court, including the Supreme Court, from stopping the administration from imposing a contempt ruling on any case unless there was a bond included in the case. Obviously, it's rare that a federal case would require a bond, leaving the courts with almost no power to stop these cases.
If it is not removed from the House bill and is passed by the Senate, the courts will essentially be powerless. This means Congress, which has voluntarily relinquished any responsibility to stop the administration, and the courts will have little recourse to prevent this country from collapsing into an authoritarian dictatorship.
Carole Lutness, Valencia
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bipartisan group of Georgia lawmakers pushes back on proposed federal 10-year ban on state AI limits
Six Georgia lawmakers joined more than 250 of their colleagues nationwide to ask Congress not to hamper their ability to regulate artificial intelligence. Midjourney/AI-generated art A bipartisan group of state lawmakers, including six from Georgia, is calling on Congress to cut a provision out of the massive federal spending bill that freezes state regulations on artificial intelligence for 10 years. 'As state lawmakers and policymakers, we regularly hear from constituents about the rise of online harms and the impacts of AI on our communities,' the lawmakers wrote. 'In an increasingly fraught digital environment, young people are facing new threats online, seniors are targeted by the emergence of AI-generated scams, and workers and creators face new challenges in an AI-integrated economy. Over the next decade, AI will raise some of the most important public policy questions of our time, and it is critical that state policymakers maintain the ability to respond.' The Georgia signers were Sen. John Albers of Roswell and Reps. Todd Jones of South Forsyth and Gary Richardson of Evans, who are all Republicans, as well as Democratic Reps. Scott Holcomb and Tanya Miller of Atlanta and Sam Park of Lawrenceville. In all, 261 legislators from all 50 states signed the letter. Georgia lawmakers from both chambers met over the summer last year to discuss potential AI regulations. Albers, who chairs the Senate AI study committee, often stressed that he did not wish to overregulate, saying that he saw lawmakers' duty as balancing protections for Georgians with creating a friendly environment for businesses. During this year's legislative session, no major AI bills passed into law, including broadly popular provisions like increasing penalties for using AI to create child pornography or deceptive 'deep fake' campaign advertisements. An Albers bill intended to create a new state advisory board on artificial intelligence and to require local governments to report on their use of the technology died in the Senate Economic Development and Tourism Committee on the advice of Suwanee GOP Congressman Rich McCormick. Then-committee chair Brandon Beach, who now serves as U.S. Treasurer, said at the time that McCormick told him not to take any action on AI because Congress would take care of it. Senators created a new committee this year to examine artificial intelligence and digital currency, but members have not yet been appointed and no hearing dates have been set. The GOP's megabill, which has become the cornerstone of President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, passed the House by a single vote and is now in the hands of the Senate. Getting the legislation through the House was a challenge the first time, with factions within the Republican Party at odds over the size of cuts to federal programs and the expected increase in the deficit. The new focus of the AI provision could prove to be another sticking point. Members of the House including Rome Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene have indicated they were not aware of the regulation ban when they voted for the bill and will not support it when it comes back to the House unless the rule is removed. 'I voted for President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill because it delivers his MAGA campaign promises and he endorses the bill and wants Congress to pass it in order to fund his MAGA agenda,' Greene said on social media. 'Do I love the price tag? NO. But I want OUR policies funded. I campaigned across the country for YEARS with Trump, more than any member of Congress, and the man NEVER said he would destroy state rights for 10 years to let AI tech companies run rampant!!! TAKE IT OUT OR I'M VOTING NO WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE HOUSE!!!!!' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Dems Get Bonus Hearing on Crypto Market Structure, Assail Trump Conflicts
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. President Donald Trump's crypto ventures were once again under the microscope during a House Financial Services Committee hearing that otherwise saw legal experts express worries about how regulators might police digital assets under a market structure bill. The committee held a "minority day" hearing — meaning the witnesses were primarily picked by the Democrats, the current minority party in the House — on Friday, letting lawmakers ask questions more targeted on concerns they have with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the Republican-led market structure legislation that will receive a markup vote next week. Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the committee who'd demanding this extracurricular hearing after the panel met earlier in the week on the same topic, pointed to Trump's various crypto efforts in her opening statement, saying her goal was to stop Trump from profiting off of his crypto ventures to the extent he has been. "What I'm opposed to in this act … is the crooked president of the United States of America, who's decided to use the office of the presidency to enhance his access to profits," Waters said. Republicans focused on a different tack: "Currently, there is no federal framework for non-security digital assets," Committee Chair French Hill said in his own opening statement, a stance echoed by his colleagues Bryan Steil and Warren Davidson. They contend that Democrats and the administration of former President Joe Biden allowed years to pass in which they failed to protect consumers by offering no rules to oversee crypto. Crypto has driven an ideological wedge into the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill, with many Democrats — typically skewing toward the younger members — supporting the advancement of digital assets legislation despite the direction of their leadership. Most of the Democrats attending this bonus hearing on the Clarity Act were in the crypto-critical camp, though Representative Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, has supported crypto bills in the past and questioned witnesses at the hearing about his concerns that the bill may include loopholes that could allow financial firms to dodge oversight. Himes, a yes vote on last year's predecessor to the Clarity Act — the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21 — said some of the provisions in the new effort may allow for a carveout that can be abused by certain types of issuers under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. The Clarity Act itself is more complicated than it needs to be and does not address some of the cybersecurity risks posed to the cryptocurrency industry, said Carole House, a former White House adviser who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council GeoEconomics Center. She pointed to recent crypto hacks, including crypto exchange ByBit, as an example. Amanda Fischer, policy director at Better Markets, a Washington group advocating for financial policies that favor the public, said her bigger issue was with the exceptions that exist for companies to seek regulation under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying that it might provide loopholes for issuers or other crypto companies that otherwise would be regulated under the SEC and be subject to securities registration and reporting requirements. But as has been seen in other recent hearings, Trump's crypto ties again reappeared as the star of the show. Bart Naylor, a policy expert at Public Citizen and a former investigator for the Senate Banking Committee, said he believes Trump is specifically soliciting gifts through his memecoin and selling favors through actions like his memecoin dinner or by terminating SEC lawsuits against companies which donated money to him. White House officials have routinely denied Trump is exhibiting a conflict of interests in his pursuit of digital assets business gains. Waters had staged a walkout last month from what was meant to be a joint hearing of this and the House Agriculture Committee on crypto policy, though industry insiders were careful to note that not all the panel's Democrats followed Waters' departure.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Handful of House Democrats join Republicans in sanctuary city crackdown
A pair of bills cracking down on sanctuary cities passed the House of Representatives this week — with the support of multiple Democrats. On Thursday, the House passed a bill to withdraw Small Business Administration (SBA) services from jurisdictions that shelter illegal immigrants. The legislation passed the House in a 211 to 199 vote, with five Democrats joining the GOP: Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Laura Gillen of New York, Don Davis of North Carolina, Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington. Dems Fume Over 'Due Process' For Abrego Garcia Despite Long History Of Party Bucking The Legal Principle That's despite House Democratic leaders urging lawmakers to vote against the bill. SBA offices at the regional, district and local levels would be required to relocate if the administration publicly designated their locations as sanctuary jurisdictions. Read On The Fox News App "House Republicans are holding these cities accountable for their refusal to follow immigration law and protect their citizens," House Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota, the No. 3 House Republican, told Fox News Digital of the bill. "Under President Trump, lawlessness that endangers the American people and prioritizes illegal aliens will not be rewarded with federal dollars and resources." The second bill, which passed on Friday morning, would add explicit language banning people in the U.S. illegally from obtaining SBA loans. Eight Democrats voted for that legislation — Perez, Cuellar, Gillen and Davis all voted for the bill, along with Reps. Tom Suozzi of New York, Josh Harder of California, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan. House Democratic leaders did not appear to give their caucus guidance on how to vote for the bill. Maxine Waters Floats Deporting Melania Trump In Anti-doge Diatribe It is a sign of illegal immigration's continued potency as a political issue, after proving key to Republicans' victories in the House, Senate and White House last year. The former bill was introduced by Rep. Brad Finstad, R-Minn., and the latter by Rep. Beth Van Duyne, article source: Handful of House Democrats join Republicans in sanctuary city crackdown
