Rick Scott Reveals Republicans Are Absolutely Cutting Medicare
During an appearance at the Rescuing the American Dream Summit in Washington Thursday, Scott said it was only a matter of time before the government would have to cut spending to 'any program you care about.'
'Because Medicare is going bankrupt, Social Security is going bankrupt. You know, inflation can't go away, interest rates can't come down. So, my belief is that … we're gonna have to do this,' the Florida Republican said.
Scott knows a thing or two about bankrupting Medicare. He served as CEO of Columbia/HCA Hospital, which was fined a total of $1.7 billion in 2003 for filing false Medicare claims. At the time, it was the largest health care fraud in history, and while that particular honor has since been passed to another, Scott's honor remains unrestored.
Scott is one of the few Republicans who doesn't seem to be in denial about what having approved the latest budget bill to power Donald Trump's agenda really means. The bill requires the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees Medicaid, to reduce the deficit by at least $880 billion from 2025 to 2034. Mathematically speaking, cuts that big can only come out of massive programs such as Medicaid.
Cutting the incredibly popular program will undoubtedly prove, well, unpopular, but some Republicans have another strategy: Deny, deny, deny.
Republican Representative Brandon Gill tiptoed around the issue during an interview on Fox Business Thursday, driving host Maria Bartiromo up the wall.
'Congressman, I mean, with all due respect, you haven't given me one offset,' Bartiromo pressed. 'OK? You say that you're not gonna have one problem finding an offset, and so far all I've heard you talk about is Elon Musk's fraud, waste, and abuse cuts, as well as eliminating climate change rules. Again, 76 percent of the money is going to mandatory spending. You know that better than anyone! I've got the numbers in front of me. You've got $36 trillion in debt.
'Isn't it time to start looking at the mandatory spending, and trying to figure out how you're actually gonna cut—I mean, I know nobody wants to say this, but you've got stuff like Medicaid, don't you?' Bartiromo asked.
Gill insisted he had described areas that could be cut, but noted that, 'I agree with you, we are going to have to find some rationalizations.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch
USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
What to know on Trump's DC takeover
Hi! Rebecca Morin here. I've been binging 'The Summer I Turned Pretty' to take a break from all the news – and it's fair to say I'm excited for the new episode this week. Is DC unsafe, like Trump claims? President Donald Trump on Monday said he wants to combat what he called 'bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse' in Washington, DC – deploying National Guard troops and having the federal government take over the city's police department. But crime data paints a much more nuanced picture of what's going on in the nation's capital. Washington does have relatively high rates of violent crime and murder among major cities in the United States, but it has a much lower violent crime rate than some cities Trump hasn't spotlighted, such as Memphis, Tennessee. Overall, crime in the city has been on a downward trend in recent years. The murder rate in DC is far below its historic peak, which at one point led to the city earning the moniker of "murder capital.' See a breakdown of the data. Who is running DC police? As part of Trump's new actions in DC, the president tapped his newly confirmed Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terrance "Terry" Cole to also head the Metropolitan Police Department, one of the nation's largest and most dysfunctional police departments. It was unclear how the police rank and file and the MPD's police union would respond to being run by the Trump administration. Why the pressure is on for Cole in his new position. Anger over Trump crackdown: Dozens of people in the nation's capitol took to the streets on Monday to protest Trump's actions. One protester, Donna Powell, told USA TODAY that the president is 'trying to piss people off.' See what residents said about Trump's new actions. A politics pit stop Lawmakers to push for Epstein files release Congress is on their annual one-month summer break. But when lawmakers make it back to the U.S. Capitol, one thing is already on their agenda: the controversy surrounding convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats and Republicans alike have been pushing for the release of all the Epstein files after a Justice Department report found that Epstein died by suicide and did not have a 'client list,' despite previous suggestions by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Epstein and Trump were once longtime friends. Members of Congress from both parties say they'll force more public debate on the issue when their recess ends after Labor Day. Inside lawmakers' plans to push for release of Epstein files. Why DC banned kindergarten 'redshirting' Jennifer Lilintahl, in Washington, DC wanted to delay her five-year-old from entering kindergarten. Her daughter, she said, wasn't ready to learn to read. Now her daughter is six-years-old and Lilintahl tried to enroll her in kindergarten, but DC Public Schools officials said she'd have to enter first grade because of her age. Delaying kindergarten for one year, a process known as 'redshirting,' is one of the latest issues for the growing parents' rights movement, which has been dominated by public school parents who want more control over what their children learn and where they go to school. Some parents argue their kids need the "additional year of schooling" in pre-kindergarten. But others say it creates an unfair advantage compared to families who don't have the resources to delay schooling. What to know about the debate. Got a burning question, or comment, for On Politics? You can submit them here or send me an email at rdmorin@
Scientific American
13 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
