Latest news with #RussFulcher
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The big, beautiful billionaire tax-cut bill will hasten America's decline
Protesters attend a "Hands Off" rally to demonstrate against U.S. President Donald Trump on the National Mall on April 5, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) Ever since the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, America has been admired around the world as a beacon of equality, freedom and opportunity. That admiration helped the United States become the world's preeminent economic and military power over the last 80 years. While we have faced serious problems, like racial inequality, poverty and questionable wars, our elected representatives have usually been able to work together in an effort to address them. I fear that the era of America's economic and moral dominance is now faltering and headed into a period of decline. U.S. House-passed tax bill weakens accountability at for-profit colleges, advocates say The so-called big, beautiful bill, which the U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 22, is a symptom of the decline. It will greatly benefit the wealthy, while denying medical care, food assistance and other social safety-net programs to those on the lower income scale. The bill would substantially increase income inequality in the country and likely necessitate a $500 billion cut in Medicare spending. It is unfathomable that U.S. Reps. Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson voted for the bill and that Gov. Brad Little strongly supported its passage. Unless the U.S. Senate stops the bill in its tracks, the states will have to increase their budgetary outlays or let their voters go without vital services. The national debt consequences of the bill are also of great concern. It should be remembered that Trump added $8.4 trillion to the national debt during his first term, more than any other U.S. president. His big, beautiful bill would add an additional $3.8 trillion to the debt, which would raise the debt from its current $36.2 trillion to a whopping $40 trillion. That is a very serious problem in itself, but made substantially worse by other destructive actions he has taken that will seriously hinder the nation's ability to deal with that massive debt. The U.S. lives wildly beyond its means by borrowing against the future. Instead of requiring wealthy corporations and individuals to pay their fair share of taxes, we simply finance the deficits by issuing government bonds. Since the mid-1990s the GOP has forgotten that budget deficits can be prevented by raising adequate revenue. Thus, the national debt has ballooned from $5.6 trillion in 2000 to $36.2 trillion at the end of 2024. About $8.5 trillion of the debt is held by foreign governments and investors. Foreigners have helped finance our debt because the U.S. has been regarded as a steady, reliable trustworthy nation. Our dollar is the coin of the international realm, and our government bonds have always been seen as a safe, reliable investment, particularly in times of international economic turmoil. Donald Trump has shaken the world order by dumping on our friends and allies, including those closest to us – Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Japan and Korea. He has disregarded trading relationships that have made America the leader of the free world. Trump's latest threat to impose 50% tariffs on European nations seems designed to drive away our steadiest, most-reliable trading partners and military allies. His erratic and self-defeating tariff actions have shown America to be an unreliable partner. Our friends and allies have started forging stronger trading relationships among themselves and with China, our chief international adversary. This will reverberate against U.S. economic and security interests well into the future. The bond market has become increasingly edgy about Trump's erratic behavior. Investors are concerned about the safety of U.S. bonds, as evidenced by an increasing interest rate on our nation's bonded indebtedness. The big, beautiful bill promises to trigger a crisis in the bond market. A well-regarded economist has observed: 'The U.S. government bond markets are already shaky, long-term interest rates are rising, and it seems that foreign investors are fleeing the United States.' It is inconceivable that such chaos in the economic foundation of our country could have occurred since January. America has long been regarded as the moral beacon of the world. As President Ronald Reagan put it in his Farewell Address — 'The shining city upon a hill.' That perception is no longer the case. A recent survey discloses that America's worldwide popularity has suffered a collapse since January. China is now regarded more favorably than the United States. Trump is viewed more negatively (58%) than Vladimir Putin (49%) and Xi Jinping (31%). Those dismal numbers foretell a decline in America's ability to sustain its position as the premier moral, economic and military power in the world. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
For Medicaid cuts, national work requirements being considered, says Idaho's U.S. Rep. Fulcher
U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, speaks with Republican supporters at the Idaho GOP election night watch party at the Grove Hotel in Boise, Idaho, on Nov. 8, 2022. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun) U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, sits on the House committee tasked with finding $880 billion in spending cuts over the next decade. While he stressed that the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is early into searching for cuts, he offered a preview for what's on the table in an interview with the Idaho Capital Sun on Monday. 'The big takeaway is, number one, our objective is to save it,' Fulcher said of Medicaid. '… And I think we're going to get there. Number two: our objective is to keep the benefits intact for everybody it was intended for. And I think we're going to get there.' Asked what he meant by Medicaid's intended population, Fulcher described what Medicaid enrollment looked like before the Affordable Care Act prompted all but 10 states to expand Medicaid. 'Disabled people, elderly people who truly need the health care, and they don't have any other channel to get it. And that's what Medicaid was designed for. And we're trying to make sure that that remains intact,' he said. But Fulcher pushed back on what he called misinformation about congressional Medicaid spending cut plans, naming U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, who recently visited Idaho for a rally. 'I know exactly where they're coming from, and they would like to see a universal health care system. And there was a big push to make Medicaid that vehicle — and it was just never designed for that,' Fulcher said. 'If you're working-age, able-bodied, I think that there's a reasonable chance that that's going to change. But at the same time, I would say there's some fairness in there too, because that was really never what was envisioned with the program. It's just the expansion population included everybody, and there was never any discussion for a funding mechanism,' Fulcher said. 'So shame on all of us for letting that happen.' But not all of the House's planned cuts need to come from Medicaid, he said. One of the first places the committee will look is to end mandates for electric vehicles and green energy, which he said could combine to well over $100 billion alone. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX For Medicaid, several savings options are on the table, Fulcher said, like: Medicaid work requirements for 'working-age, able-bodied people.' That could also come with a range of exceptions, Fulcher said, like for people with disabilities or who are medically frail, Native American tribe members, people under the age of 19, people over the age of 64, and people in school or training. There might also be hardship waivers, he said, targeted to counties with higher unemployment rates. 'If we simply employ that — which, frankly, I think is warranted, because it was never intended for the working age, able-bodied, ever — then you might get the rest of the way,' Fulcher told the Sun. 'We very well may get the rest of the way of the savings target we're trying to hit.' Rule changes for noncitizens and people enrolled in Medicaid in several states at the same time. (In Idaho, noncitizens do not qualify for Medicaid generally. But they can qualify for emergency services paid by Medicaid.) Cutting states' higher matching rate for Medicaid expansion hasn't been discussed — yet, Fulcher said. CONTACT US 'I'm not saying it's not going to be. But that's not discussed yet. And I think part of the reason why is we want to know how much savings we think we can get' in other ways, Fulcher said. But any federal cuts to Medicaid expansion match rates could have ripple effects that could force states into tough decisions about whether to continue Medicaid expansion. Here's how: If the feds cut their Medicaid expansion match rate, Medicaid expansion in nine states would automatically be repealed, based on trigger laws in those states, according to Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families. In Idaho, cutting the federal match rate for Medicaid expansion would either: Trigger a review by the Idaho Legislature when it is in session based on one law, or allow the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare director to use broad program cut powers recently given to him by a new state law. Here's how the federal match rate works: The federal government covers 90% of a state's Medicaid expansion costs, through the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. That's significantly higher than the typical Medicaid federal matching rate, which is adjusted each year based on states' economic performance. Idaho usually gets 70% of its non-expansion Medicaid costs covered by the federal government. Provider taxes are a complex process states use to get additional federal Medicaid funds, Fulcher explained. Typically hospitals are taxed some amount that states claim as a Medicaid expense to get additional federal funds. In Idaho, it's called the hospital assessment tax. Across the nation, Fulcher said provider taxes account for about $600 billion. 'That was never intended for that to be the process. And so this provider tax issue has really turned into kind of a milking of the federal system. And we don't know how much of that is really going for care, and just how much that is going to other expenses for hospitals,' Fulcher said. 'We just don't know. It might all be legitimate.' A long way out: Fulcher stressed the U.S. House's process to find spending cuts is just starting, and that Congress is likely months away from passing bills for cuts. The U.S. House and Senate have passed competing budget cut plans, and both need to reconcile their differences for policies to pass both chambers. 'The current budget resolution goes through the end of September. And frankly, I think we're going to chew up all that time. Because what's likely to happen is our committee is going to come up with something, and it will pass the House. And then the Senate is — their committees are going to come up with something else. It's going to pass the Senate. And then we're going to grind it up between the two,' Fulcher said. 'So this is a long long way, I think, from fruition.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Hill
14-02-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Republicans put healthcare cuts front and center to advance agenda
House Republicans are putting cuts to Medicaid at the top of their list of budget cuts to help pay for their wide-ranging agenda that spans tax cuts, energy production and border security. Republicans are eyeing changes to how much the federal government, as opposed to states, will contribute to Medicaid expenditures, an amount called the federal medical assistance percentage, or FMAP. Republicans see Medicaid as a program rife with fraud and abuse and have long sought to rein in its spending. The joint federal-state program provides health coverage for more than 70 million people, with the federal government covering anywhere from 50 to about 75 percent of the costs for traditional Medicaid but 90 percent for states that expanded coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The House Budget Committee on Thursday considered a plan that would instruct the Energy and Commerce Committee – which has jurisdiction over Medicaid – to find $880 billion in savings over the next 10 years. Possible changes that Republicans are floating include capping Medicaid spending on a per capita basis at a potential savings of $900 billion per year; rolling back the enhanced federal matching rate for ACA expansion states to save $561 billion; and lowering the 50 percent floor for the traditional Medicaid population, for a savings of up to $387 billion. The latter change would primarily affect wealthier states like California and New York, but every state would bear the brunt of reduced federal spending, forcing difficult tradeoffs. Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho) told The Hill that Republicans have to go after Medicaid for cuts because 'that's where the money is.' The GOP's budget reconciliation bill is designed to move much of President Trump's legislative agenda through special rules that sidestep a Senate filibuster. The bill could add trillions to deficits without off-setting tax hikes or spending cuts to pay for it. 'We got the word that we've got to come up with $900 billion [in cuts]. There's only one place you can go, and that's Medicaid. That's where the money is,' Fulcher said. 'There's others – don't get me wrong. But if you're going to get to $900 billion, something has to be reformed on the Medicaid front.' '[FMAP] will clearly be debated,' he added. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said his conference was considering how Medicaid 'formulas are applied in terms of state-by-state.' 'Whether you have more state administration, you can save money. There are things we can do that don't go directly touching benefits, but that's what we're having conversations about on the spending side,' he said. Asked during an interview on C-SPAN Tuesday what a Republican re-envisioning of U.S. health insurance programs would look like, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the Freedom Caucus, responded: 'Re-envisioning is [to] block granting dollars to the states. Let them decide how it wants to be allocated. [And it's] getting illegals off any federal program, including Medicaid.' 'It's not cutting Medicare – it's reforming it,' he added. Republicans are also considering establishing work requirements for Medicaid. An expansion of the Child Tax Credit failed to pass last year because it didn't include work requirements, among other reasons. Certain groups of people in the Republican proposal wouldn't have to work in order to get health coverage through Medicaid, including pregnant women, primary caregivers, people with disabilities, and full-time students. 'With respect to Medicaid, we just want to make sure that we're putting in the reforms that most Americans support – things like able-bodied Americans working if they're on Medicaid benefits,' Roy told reporters Tuesday. Critics of work requirements say they're mostly geared to getting people unenrolled in federal programs rather than increasing work. 'In practice, work requirements result in large levels of unenrollment with no increase in work,' labor economist Kathryn A. Edwards wrote in a recent commentary. 'The work requirement is in fact a paperwork requirement, one onerous enough that people forego help.' No changes have officially been proposed at this early stage of the budget reconciliation process, but Democrats are sounding the alarm. 'Folks, they are coming after your Medicaid. They are coming after your healthcare period in order to pay for their large tax cuts to billionaires,' House Budget Committee ranking member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) said Thursday. The first Trump administration actively encouraged states to implement work requirements, but the plan envisioned by House Republicans would require it nationwide. In 2018, Arkansas was the first state to implement requirements that people work, volunteer or attend school or job training in order to receive benefits. A federal judge struck the requirement down in 2019, but not before more than 18,000 people lost coverage. The Congressional Budget Office has found work requirements would save the federal government just $109 billion over a 10-year period while doing little to increase employment. CBO found it would also lead to 1.5 million people losing Medicaid. A policy brief from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropy focused on healthcare, found that 'work requirements reduce access to healthcare and health-promoting programs, keep eligible people from acquiring assistance, and drive people deeper into poverty.' Republicans must also face the political reality that not all GOP lawmakers, especially those in competitive districts, will be on board with severe Medicaid cuts. The GOP attempt to cut Medicaid spending as part of an Affordable Care Act repeal during Trump's first administration failed, and the ensuing controversy contributed to their loss of the majority in the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans have only a slim majority in the House and will need every vote to pass the budget resolution on the floor. They will also face a formidable obstacle in hospitals and health providers who will lobby heavily against any cuts to Medicaid. 'While some have suggested dramatic reductions in the Medicaid program as part of a reconciliation vehicle, we would urge Congress to reject that approach. Medicaid provides health care to many of our most vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, children, the elderly, disabled and many of our working class,' Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, said in a statement. Another potential complicating factor is Trump himself, who recently included Medicaid in the list of programs he vowed not to touch — with a catch. 'We're not going to do anything with that, unless we can find some abuse or waste,' Trump said, vowing to 'love and cherish' Medicaid. 'The people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better,' Trump said.
