Joni Ernst's ‘Well, we all are going to die,' and the GOP's flippant defenses of Trump's agenda

CNN

2 days ago

One of the reasons politicians don't often engage in massive overhauls of the American economy is that it's very difficult to defend a massive overhaul of the American economy. However good any given plan is, it often produces losers and – even in the best of cases – some short-term pain.
And repeatedly now as President Donald Trump has launched multiple massive overhauls, prominent Republicans have learned that the hard way.
Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa is the most recent.
Appearing at a town hall on Friday, Ernst was pressed on cuts to Medicaid – the health care program for low-income Americans – in House Republicans' budget plan. One audience member shouted that 'people will die.'
The usual politician thing would have been to take issue with that premise – or to, as other Republicans have strained to do, cast the Medicaid cuts as merely cutting waste and abuse. (That's not the full story, of course; the Congressional Budget Office recently projected that House Republicans' changes to Medicaid, including work requirements for some recipients, would leave 7.6 million Americans uninsured by 2034.)
But Ernst decided to go in a different direction.
'Well, we all are going to die,' said Ernst, who's facing reelection in 2026.
When hostile portions of the crowd balked at the response, she said: 'For heaven's sakes, folks.'
The senator and her office argued Friday that Republicans are in fact trying to 'strengthen' Medicaid. A spokesman said: 'There's only two certainties in life: death and taxes, and she's working to ease the burden of both by fighting to keep more of Iowans' hard-earned tax dollars in their own pockets and ensuring their benefits are protected from waste, fraud, and abuse.'
Ernst in her remarks went on to accuse her critics of not wanting to 'listen to me when I say that we are going to focus on those that are most vulnerable. Those that meet the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, we will protect … them.'
As a contrast, she cited an oft-invoked GOP claim that 1.4 million undocumented immigrants are receiving Medicaid benefits. But that's not actually what the CBO estimate says – nor does it account for the other millions of people the CBO says would lose insurance.
In other words, however bad Ernst's answer was, it might just be that there's not a good answer to be given. Republicans needed to cut spending to pay for Trump's tax cuts, and it's hard to cut enough unless you cut entitlements. It's a political minefield that even some Trump allies like Steve Bannon have warned their party about.
And indeed, Democrats quickly leapt to highlight Ernst as the epitome of an uncaring, Medicaid-busting Republican.
But Ernst is not the first to wander into this kind of territory. Repeatedly in recent weeks, prominent Republicans who have been asked to account for the pains caused by Trump's bold plans have stumbled into similar territory.
Trump himself has repeatedly talked about how the price increases created by his tariffs might mean people have to buy fewer dolls for little girls.
'You know, someone said, 'Oh, the shelves, they're going to be open,'' Trump said. 'Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.'
Trump said on the campaign trail that foreign countries would pay the extra cost of the tariffs, not consumers.
Conservative Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro called Trump's comments 'a tremendous commercial for Democrats' and urged Trump to avoid language that minimized the impacts of inflation.
Back in March, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick addressed the administration's chaotic changes to the Social Security system by claiming that only 'fraudsters' would complain about missing a Social Security check. He pointed to his own mother-in-law. (The administration has pursued a series of sometimes halting changes to the Social Security system, including limiting claims to in-person rather than over the phone – something it later walked back – and cutting staff.)
'Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law, who's 94 – she wouldn't call and complain,' Lutnick said. He added: 'She just wouldn't. She'd think something got messed up, and she'll get it next month. A fraudster always makes the loudest noise – screaming, yelling and complaining.'
It's logical to assume that Lutnick's mother-in-law wouldn't complain, given her son-in-law is a billionaire. But according to the Social Security Administration, more than 1 in 10 seniors rely on the program for at least 90% of their income.
Are any of these game-changing gaffes? Not necessarily. But they are certainly fodder for Democrats to argue that Trump is pursuing a rather haphazard and callous overhaul of the American economy. It's the kind of thing Bannon warns about in cautioning Republicans against Medicaid cuts. There just aren't many good ways to defend millions of poor people being projected to lose their health insurance.
And if the early evidence is any indication, it's going to result in plenty of awkward defenses in the future.