Latest news with #WorkingClass
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders to speak at three West Virginia events Aug. 8 and 9
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, shown speaking in Tempe, Arizona, on March 20, 2025 at a 'Fight Oligarchy' rally, will speak at three events in West Virginia Aug. 8 and 9. (Jerod MacDonald-Evoy | Arizona Mirror) U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, a former candidate for president, will bring his 'Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here' speaking event tour to three West Virginia locations next weekend. Sanders will speak in Wheeling Friday, Aug. 8 and in Mingo County and Charleston on Saturday, Aug. 9. Sanders' website describes the tour as 'real discussions across America on how we move forward to take on the Oligarchs and corporate interests who have so much power and influence in this country. The tour will target 'deep red' districts held by Republicans, including West Virginia and North Carolina, according to a news release. 'Red state, blue state — the people of this country are opposed to an economy that works for the 1% and not for working class Americans.' Sanders said in a news release. 'I'll be heading to West Virginia and North Carolina to discuss the need for decent paying jobs, health care for all, and the end of a corrupt campaign finance system in which billionaires buy politicians. Together, we can defeat the oligarchs who have taken hold of our country.' Sanders ran for president as a Democrat in 2016, losing in the primary to Hillary Clinton. He also ran in the 2020 Democratic primary. He won the 2016 Democratic primary in every county in West Virginia, the West Virginia Democratic Party noted in a news release Thursday. The party said they welcome Sanders to the state, calling the visit a reminder of what public service should look like. 'While Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Sen. Jim Justice, Congressman Riley Moore, and Congresswoman Carol Miller continue to avoid public town halls and shield themselves from accountability, Senator Sanders is once again doing what they refuse to do: meeting directly with the people of West Virginia,' they said in the statement. 'We are thankful for his continued advocacy on many issues, especially on behalf of health care access, a strong and solvent Social Security system, quality public education and most importantly, reducing the influence of money in politics. 'While perspectives may vary on some of Senator Sanders' positions, his commitment to economic fairness and opportunity resonates deeply with West Virginians,' they wrote. Wheeling 6 p.m. Friday, Aug. 8, at the Capitol Theatre, 1015 Main Street in Wheeling. Doors open at 3:30 p.m. Parking is available on the street and in nearby surface lots. Tickets are not required, but an RSVP is encouraged. Mingo County 1 p.m. Saturday, Aug. 9 at the Lenore Community Center, 19 Laurel Creek Road in Lenore. Doors open at 11:30 a.m. ET. Free parking is available onsite. Tickets are not required, but an RSVP is encouraged. Charleston 6 p.m. Saturday, Aug. 9 at the Charleston Coliseum and Convention Center, 200 Civic Center Drive in Charleston. Doors open at 3:30 p.m. ET. Free parking available onsite. Tickets are not required, but an RSVP is encouraged. This story has been corrected to reflect that Sanders ran for president in 2016 and in 2020. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
23-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CT council member in garbage business pledges $500K of his own money on congressional run
Jack Perry admits that he does not have the normal pedigree for a member of Congress. After spending a career in the garbage hauling business, Perry said that he is running as a Democrat against 77-year-old U.S. Rep. John B. Larson in a potential multi-candidate primary in 2026. Perry, 35, also gained attention by pledging to spend $500,000 of his own money against Larson, using part of the proceeds from selling his family-owned garbage business that he started in 2008. 'I'm not a typical politician. I mean, seriously, how many can drive a garbage truck?' Perry asked. 'I'm a working-class guy who is unafraid to take on big challenges and stand up for people. I'm not trying to climb a political ladder for myself. I want to make sure everyone has ladders to climb and can afford to live and retire comfortably in Connecticut. I'll fight for the people, not the powerful.' As a Democratic member of Southington's Republican-controlled town council, Perry is not well known statewide. But he gained additional name recognition in his hometown when running for state Senate in 2020 against conservative firebrand Rob Sampson of Wolcott. Sampson won by 54% to 46% in the year that incumbent President Donald Trump ran strongly in the district despite losing in Connecticut and nationwide to Democrat Joe Biden. CT US congressman in seat for decades might have a Democratic challenger Perry spent 16 years in the family business, HQ Dumpsters and Recycling, before it was sold last year to trash hauler CWPM in Plainville. While no longer the owner, he still oversees the daily operations for the new owner, the Manafort family, in a position he says is far less stressful. As a relative political newcomer, Perry understands it will be difficult running against veteran Democrats with high name recognition like Larson and former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin, who is seriously considering joining the race. 'It's a heavy lift, and that's where I'm trying to make it viable and showing people how passionate I am,' Perry told The Courant in an interview. 'Anyone that knows me knows that when my heart's in it, I will work endless hours, and that's just who I am as a person. Passion is everything. That's how I was able to build a successful garbage business. I started in 2008 during the Great Recession. It was passion, determination and work ethic. Nothing I've gotten in life has been easy, but it's very rewarding.' Perry added, 'I'm looking to be a fresh voice with new energy and advocate for the working class, the middle class, and those that are retiring that can't afford to stay in our state because of the cost. It goes back to inflation, grocery bills, electric costs, housing — all those things. It's hard.' With a mother who was an immigrant from Poland and a biological father who was absent from his life, Perry was raised with the help of his stepfather. He started working in the family's landscaping business at the age of 13, and has continued working ever since. Through the years, he has watched housing costs skyrocket, along with food and many other items. 'I was reading the other day in the paper that the average age for a first-time homebuyer is 38 years old,' Perry said. 'I'm 35. I bought my first home at 25 on a single income. It was hard for me, and it was a fixer-upper. But you can't do that in Southington on a single income of $60,000. It's just not doable. In 2015, it was.' He added, 'Inflation is hurting people, and they're now picking and choosing what they can afford to buy. Over the years, I've seen employees struggle. As an employer, I was able to help my employees. I remember an employee couldn't afford his insulin. This was before they made insulin affordable. We got him a different plan and coverage to be able to afford his insulin. I'm the type that, when I see issues, I stand up, regardless of how big the fight may be and regardless of what the obstacles are to get there.' Larson's campaign spokesman, Charles Perosino, said that democracy ensures that anyone seeking to run can do so, adding that the voters will make the final decision on their representative. 'John is proud to have secured billions in federal funding for the First District, including over $34 million for the town of Southington, and remains focused on taking on the Trump Administration as they raise the cost of living for working families by attacking access to health care, imposing cost-raising tariffs, and threatening Americans' hard-earned benefits,' Perosino said. 'When Democrats take the majority in 2026, John will serve as chair of the Social Security committee, and has been recognized as a national leader to protect and expand benefits, so that all Americans can retire — as FDR intended — with dignity.' Perry's entrance into the race comes as the political dam has broken in the battle against Larson. As more opponents step forward, there is little downside in challenging an established incumbent because others have already jumped into the race. The first official opponent was Hartford school board member and attorney Ruth R. Fortune, who filed official paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to run against Larson. After emigrating to the United States at age 12 from Haiti, Fortune grew up in the Nassau County town of Westbury on Long Island. She graduated from Baruch College in Manhattan and later received a law degree from the University of Connecticut. A Hartford resident since 2012, she has two children attending the Hartford public schools and a younger sibling starting pre-K this year. A former financial advisor at Merrill Lynch, she now works at the law firm of Wiggin and Dana in the trust and estates department. The best-known opponent is Bronin, who is seriously considering running and has been talking to fellow Democrats about the possibility. Larson, who turned 77 on Tuesday, personally told Bronin during an hour-long, face-to-face meeting that he is running again. Bronin would be the highest profile challenger in years for Larson, who has won 14 consecutive elections. As a graduate of Yale Law School, a Rhodes Scholar and a former U.S. Navy intelligence officer in Afghanistan, Bronin has a wide range of contacts and has shown his fundraising prowess when he won the Democratic primary for mayor in Hartford by unseating incumbent Pedro Segarra. State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, a West Hartford Democrat, told The Courant on Tuesday that she is considering running but does not have a timeframe on when her final decision will be made. 'I think I would be great holding that seat in Congress,' said Gilchrest, who serves as co-chair of the state legislature's human services committee. 'While the sitting Congressman is still in the race, there's a sense that some respect should go his way, but with more and more people getting in, it's hard not to want to be a part of it if you think you're qualified to do the job.' Among the top issues in the race, she said, are wages, public education, access to health care, and concerns about the environment, among others. 'For Democrats, they're looking for voices who will be speaking about the issues that impact them and not waiting to feel out how best to say something,' Gilchrest said. 'They want to hear from leaders who are direct and listen to them and then speak on the issues of importance that impact their daily lives.' Larson's family, which has supported him in all races since even before he won a key primary for Congress in 1998, is already gearing up for another race. Arianna Larson, a Manchester resident who is one of Larson's nieces, sent an email to multiple supporters to rally support for the incumbent. 'I'm writing to say one thing loud and clear: it's game on,' she wrote in the email obtained by The Courant. 'This is not a fundraising email. It's a rallying cry. A call to action. A moment to get off the sidelines and get behind our candidate. For the first time in a long time, my Uncle John may be facing a more competitive primary challenge. And while I respect the value of new voices and fresh ideas — believe me, I'm part of the next generation of Democrats eager to make change — I also know that this is not the moment to be testing the bench.' She added, 'This election is happening in the second half of a Trump presidency. The stakes are enormous. We don't need a reset — we need results. And no one delivers like John Larson. He's a lifelong public servant who knows this district, knows how to lead, and never forgets who he's fighting for. He doesn't seek the spotlight — he just gets to work and gets things done. … My Uncle John is ready. The campaign is ready. The family is ready. And today, as he celebrates his birthday, and another year of life dedicated to public service, I can't think of a better way to honor that than by showing up for him – just like he's always shown up for us!' Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@ Solve the daily Crossword
The Guardian
08-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Forget left and right: Norman Tebbit was a working-class hero. Politicians now could learn much from him
The word 'icon' is perhaps thrown around rather liberally in the lexicon of memorial. But in the realm of Tory politics, Norman Tebbit, whose death was announced today, was an icon – the politician who perhaps came closest, save of course for the Iron Lady herself, to embodying the phenomenon of Thatcherism. Why? He was not cast in the grouse-moor mould of the Harold Macmillan era, to be sure; but nor was Edward Heath, and little affection won he by that. (Nor, indeed, was Margaret Thatcher.) There was, perhaps, a degree of exoticism about his working-class background in the front rank of Tory politics in what was a much more class-conscious era. But Tebbit was no exotic pet, and nor would he have made such an impression on the public consciousness had he been so. Rather, he managed to personally embody a deeper, seismic shift in British politics: the Conservative party's decisive, and enormously successful, play for a large slice of the working-class vote. It is the nature of revolutionary myth-making to sometimes overstate a transformation. Working-class Toryism long predates Thatcherism, be that its Protestant and Unionist manifestations in Ulster, Scotland, and Liverpool or the more widespread tendency, noted by George Dangerfield in his 1935 classic The Strange Death of Liberal England, for working men to support the party that had no time for teetotalism. But while the nation's pubs might once have been a 'chain of political fortresses' for the party of Lord Salisbury, one can only imagine what he would have made of a working-class man serving as chairman of the Conservative and Unionist party. But then, ironically, a facility for evolution has always (until recently) been the party's strongest suit. Yet personally embodying a change is not enough to make an icon. Alone it produces at best a totem, or perhaps that should be a token; a passive object to be hoisted aloft to signal the party's adaptation to changing times. No, what made Tebbit an icon was that he believed in that change and he fought for it. He was a fighter, at a point when the party needed fighters, a true believer in what was in its early years a deeply uncertain revolution, and a bulwark for his leader against the forces of genteel reaction that would certainly, had the opportunity presented itself, have ditched her and her experiment alike. It would be an ugly politics that comprised solely each side's furious partisans. But it would be a very hollow politics that made space only for conciliators. There is an easy route to a faction's heart for a politician willing and able to be their tribune of the plebs, but that doesn't mean the job can't be well and honourably done, and Tebbit did it honourably and well. The latter is best illustrated by his star turns on the conference platform. Obviously, there was his (in)famous comment about getting on one's bike and looking for work. But more significant, in light of subsequent events, must be his call-and-response routine at the 1992 conference. 'Do you want to be part of a European union?', he asked the hall; the 'NO!' all but took the roof off. All this infuriated John Major, of course; one wonders if either seriously thought they would both live to see Britain leave it. Tebbit paid a heavier price than most for his frontline political career; the Brighton bombing saw him trapped under the rubble for an hour and, much more seriously, paralysed his wife, Margaret, for whom he subsequently cared. But like the true believer he was, he remained involved in the party and what became the Eurosceptic cause. He also managed a decade in the spotlight without acquiring airs and graces, and in the digital age proved more than willing to wade into the comments beneath his Telegraph blog and have it out with all and sundry. Courage, energy, authenticity – these Tebbit had in spades, and they are the things of which political icons are made. One might quibble that my definition makes little reference to the actual content of Tebbit's beliefs. But that is deliberate. He certainly held many views with which readers of this newspaper would profoundly disagree, then and now, and his views on social issues were wildly out of step with modern society. But an icon is not a hero, except perhaps in the Greek sense; recognising one does not require agreeing with all or even any of what they stand for. Every movement will have its own icons, and one of democracy's great strengths – or indeed, basic requirements – is recognising that there is space in public life for more than one. In fact, as a Conservative, it does with hindsight seem to have been a stronger, more vital Conservative party whose chairman was a substantial figure who could, occasionally, embarrass the leader. Henry Hill is deputy editor of ConservativeHome
The Guardian
03-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
‘It's harsh. It's mean, brutal': Trump bill to cause most harm to America's poorest
Last November, Donald Trump made a solemn vow to all Americans: 'Every citizen, I will fight for you, your family and your future every single day.' Eight months later, Trump is vigorously backing many policies that will mean pain for millions. Trump has pushed to enact the Republican budget bill, which would make significant cuts to Medicaid, Obamacare, and food assistance, and would do the greatest damage to those Americans struggling hardest to make ends meet – the 30% of the US population that lives in households earning under $50,000 a year. Even as Trump and Republican lawmakers are rushing to cut over $1.4tn in health and food assistance for non-affluent Americans, Trump continues to pressure Congress to extend over $3tn in tax cuts that disproportionately help the wealthy and corporations. Trump has embraced these Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies, even though it was voters earning less than $50,000 a year who delivered victory to him last November. They favored him over Kamala Harris by 50% to 48%, according to exit polls, while Trump and Harris tied among voters earning $50,000 or more a year. Several social policy experts said Trump has engaged in hypocrisy at best and betrayal at worst when it comes to the working-class and blue-collar Americans he promised to fight for. Speaking about the Republicans' 'big, beautiful' budget bill, Sharon Parrott, president of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said: 'Who's getting hit, who's bearing the cost? It's people with low and middle incomes, people that the president and many Republican policymakers promised to serve and support in the last election.' The budget bill would mean a net financial loss for the bottom 30% of American households by income – after factoring in its tax provisions and cuts in benefits. The House bill would hit the lowest-earning 10% of Americans hardest: for them, it would mean a painful $1,600 cut in income on average (a 3.9% drop), according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). At the same time, the Trump-backed bill would be a boon to wealthy households – it would mean a $12,000 increase in net income, on average, for households in the top 10%, those earning above $692,000 a year. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the top 0.1% – those with income over $3.3m – would receive tax cuts of $103,500 on average. The CBO says the income of the bottom 10% tops off at $22,868 (before factoring in government transfers). The second lowest decile earns from $22,868 to $43,137; the third decile earns up to $55,628; and the fourth up to $68,601. The Yale Budget Lab found that the bottom 20% of US households would see their incomes drop by 2.9% on average over the next decade, and the second lowest quintile – moderate-income households – would suffer a 0.4% loss of income on average. But the richest 20% would see their incomes rise by 2.3%. Those in the top 1% would see their incomes climb by $29,585 on average. Trump is demanding these big tax cuts for the rich even though the CBO says the budget bill will increase the federal debt by $3.3tn – a move that will push up interest rates and make mortgages and home-buying more expensive. According to the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning thinktank, the $121bn tax cuts that would go just to the richest 1% next year are significantly more than all the tax cuts that would go to the bottom 60% of Americans in terms of income. The poorest 20% of Americans would receive just 1% of the bill's tax cuts next year, while the highest earning 5% would receive 44% of the cuts. Last week, Trump urged lawmakers to enact the bill, saying: 'There are hundreds of things in there. It is so good.' At a news conference, the president said the more than $1tn in Medicaid and food assistance cuts wouldn't hurt anyone. 'It won't affect anybody,' he said. 'It is just fraud, waste and abuse.' But Parrott took a sharply different view: 'The bill stands alone historically for its unique upside-down mix of large tax cuts for the top, deep cuts that affect low- and middle-income people, and massive increases in deficits and debt.' John Ricco, the Yale Budget Lab's associate director of policy analysis, said: 'It's unambiguous that low- and moderate-income Americans will be worse off on average under the budget bill, and that's principally because the cuts in Medicaid and Snap [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] would by definition fall most heavily on these groups,' Ricco said. Jeanne Lambrew, the Century Foundation's director of health policy reform, estimates that at least 16 million Americans will lose health coverage because of the budget bill – refuting White House claims that 'no one will lose coverage'. Lambrew said the bill would cause a more than 50% increase in the number of uninsured nationwide, to nearly 45 million people. What's more, the Trump-backed plan sharply reduces Affordable Care Act subsidies, and that will force millions of Americans to either drop coverage or pay far more for coverage. Millions of Americans will find it harder to obtain healthcare, with many forced to take on far more medical debt. While Trump and many Republicans say the Medicaid cuts are all about reducing 'waste, fraud and abuse', Lambrew calculates that a mere 3.5% of the $1tn in healthcare cuts come from cutting waste and abuse. 'What Trump has been saying is, 'We're not cutting Medicaid. We're just cutting fraud.' That's gaslighting.' Lambrew said. Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, sent the Senate a letter that harshly criticized the budget bill. 'As Pope Leo XIV recently stated, it is the responsibility of politicians to promote and protect the common good, including by working to overcome great wealth inequality,' he wrote. 'This bill does not answer this call. It takes from the poor to give to the wealthy.' According to a Quinnipiac University poll, only 27% of registered voters support the GOP budget bill, while 53% oppose it. A Fox News poll found that 38% support the bill, while 59% oppose it. The House bill's deep cuts in food benefits will cause 7 million people, including over 2 million children, to lose food aid or have their food aid cut significantly. The Trump-supported bill also makes sharp cuts in Pell grant awards. The Center for American Progress says this means 4.4 million students from low- and moderate-income families could lose some or all of their federal grant aid. In another blow to Americans earning under $50,000, Trump pushed to have the budget bill eliminate the 'Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program', which, as one website put it, 'keeps poor people from freezing to death at home'. Killing the program would end heating subsidies for 6 million Americans, but so far congressional Republicans have spared the program and not bowed to Trump on this. In another blow to blue-collar Americans, the bill would undo much of Joe Biden's efforts to speed the creation of clean-energy industries, and that could put hundreds of thousands of potential jobs at risk, many of them factory jobs. 'In this bill, folks in Congress went out of their way not to give anything to low-income people,' said Chuck Marr, vice-president for federal tax policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. He noted that in previous tax cut bills that favored the rich, GOP lawmakers made sure to include some sweeteners for low- and moderate-income Americans. 'But in this bill,' Marr said, 'folks in Congress said: no, we're going to go after these people. They're going after healthcare and food, and these are the people who are also going to get hammered by Trump's tariffs.' Lower-income people spend a higher percentage of their income on goods. 'This bill is a major shift,' Marr added. 'They're taking away from poor people and working-class people and channeling it to very high-income people. I think it's punitive. It's harsh. It's mean, brutal.' Trump's tariffs would also hit less affluent Americans hardest. One study found that Trump's planned tariffs would cause the bottom 20% of households to pay up to 5.5% of their income toward tariff-caused higher prices. That's more than two and a half times the percentage that those in the top 20% would pay (2.1% of income). Trump has repeatedly boasted that the bill contains several provisions he championed to help working-class Americans. At a White House event to promote the bill, he pointed to a DoorDash driver from Wisconsin who was on hand to help make his case that the 'no tax on tips' provision would help workers. But tax experts say that provision will help only a tiny fraction of those earning under $50,000. Only 4% of workers in the bottom half by income are in tipped jobs. Moreover, nearly two-fifths of tipped workers are already earning so little that they don't pay federal income taxes. 'Given how the current income tax system works, this provision will provide little or no benefit to those workers,' said Ricco. 'Those workers tend to have low incomes, and the US system doesn't basically tax their incomes, and this won't offer them any additional tax reduction.' In other words, the server making $100,000 a year at a high-end restaurant will benefit substantially from no tax on tips, while the hotel housekeeper or 20-hour-a-week waiter at a diner making $25,000 a year will be helped little or not at all. As for Trump's much-ballyhooed 'no tax on overtime' provision, that, too, will do little for those earning under $50,000, Ricco said. 'That provision is really geared to middle- and upper-middle groups,' he said. 'People in the bottom 50% aren't paying much income tax, and so no tax on overtime wouldn't benefit them much. People in the bottom 40%, they're often in a precarious employment situation. They're generally not working 45 or 50 hours a week.' Ricco estimated that for Americans in the bottom 40% by income, the no tax on overtime provision will mean 'less than a $10 tax cut per year'. 'It's essentially a rounding error,' he said. Republicans boast that increasing the child-tax credit will help millions of struggling families – the House bill would increase that credit, now $2,000, to $2,500, while the Senate raises it to $2,200. Under current law, one in four children – about 17 million – are ineligible to qualify for the full $2,000 credit because their family's income is too low to qualify for the full credit. A two-parent family with two children needs to earn over $48,000 to obtain the full credit. Under the House bill, a single parent with two children who earns $16,000 a year would get no additional tax credit, while a married couple with two kids and a $400,000 income would see their tax credit jump by $1,000. With their eagerness to cut the social safety net, Republicans seem to be treating millions of Americans who earn less than $50,000 as undeserving takers. 'People earning under $50,000 are major targets of the Republican agenda. Their health coverage is targeted. Their food security is targeted,' said Marr. 'They are left out of key provisions expanding tax cuts, like the child tax credit. They are most at risk from the Republican tariffs. They'll be hurt across the board.' Marr said the budget bill treats 'these people very harshly'. 'It's the harshest bill we've ever seen since budget deficits became an issue 40 years ago,' he said. 'This is the first bill that simultaneously targets programs for poor people and working-class people to pay for it, and then takes that money to pay for tax cuts for very wealthy people. It makes poor and working-class people worse off. That's not been done before.'
The Guardian
03-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
‘It's harsh. I mean, brutal': Trump bill to cause most harm to America's poorest
Last November, Donald Trump made a solemn vow to all Americans: 'Every citizen, I will fight for you, your family and your future every single day.' Eight months later, Trump is vigorously backing many policies that will mean pain for millions. Trump has pushed to enact the Republican budget bill, which would make significant cuts to Medicaid, Obamacare, and food assistance, and would do the greatest damage to those Americans struggling hardest to make ends meet – the 30% of the US population that lives in households earning under $50,000 a year. Even as Trump and Republican lawmakers are rushing to cut over $1.4tn in health and food assistance for non-affluent Americans, Trump continues to pressure Congress to extend over $3tn in tax cuts that disproportionately help the wealthy and corporations. Trump has embraced these Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies, even though it was voters earning less than $50,000 a year who delivered victory to him last November. They favored him over Kamala Harris by 50% to 48%, according to exit polls, while Trump and Harris tied among voters earning $50,000 or more a year. Several social policy experts said Trump has engaged in hypocrisy at best and betrayal at worst when it comes to the working-class and blue-collar Americans he promised to fight for. Speaking about the Republicans' 'big, beautiful' budget bill, Sharon Parrott, president of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said: 'Who's getting hit, who's bearing the cost? It's people with low and middle incomes, people that the president and many Republican policymakers promised to serve and support in the last election.' The budget bill would mean a net financial loss for the bottom 30% of American households by income – after factoring in its tax provisions and cuts in benefits. The House bill would hit the lowest earning 10% of Americans hardest: for them, it would mean a painful $1,600 cut in income on average (a 3.9% drop), according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). At the same time, the Trump-backed bill would be a boon to wealthy households – it would mean a $12,000 increase in net income, on average, for households in the top 10%, those earning above $692,000 a year. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the top 0.1% – those with income over $3.3m – would receive tax cuts of $103,500 on average. The CBO says the income of the bottom 10% tops off at $22,868 (before factoring in government transfers). The second lowest decile earns from $22,868 to $43,137; the third decile earns up to $55,628; and the fourth up to $68,601. The Yale Budget Lab found that the bottom 20% of US households would see their incomes drop by 2.9% on average over the next decade, and the second lowest quintile – moderate-income households – would suffer a 0.4% loss of income on average. But the richest 20% would see their incomes rise by 2.3%. Those in the top 1% would see their incomes climb by $29,585 on average. Trump is demanding these big tax cuts for the rich even though the CBO says the budget bill will increase the federal debt by $3.3tn – a move that will push up interest rates and make mortgages and home-buying more expensive. According to the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning thinktank, the $121bn tax cuts that would go just to the richest 1% next year are significantly more than all the tax cuts that would go to the bottom 60% of Americans in terms of income. The poorest 20% of Americans would receive just 1% of the bill's tax cuts next year, while the highest earning 5% would receive 44% of the cuts. Last week, Trump urged lawmakers to enact the bill, saying: 'There are hundreds of things in there. It is so good.' At a news conference, the president said the more than $1tn in Medicaid and food assistance cuts wouldn't hurt anyone. 'It won't affect anybody,' he said. 'It is just fraud, waste and abuse.' But Parrott took a sharply different view: 'The bill stands alone historically for its unique upside-down mix of large tax cuts for the top, deep cuts that affect low- and middle-income people, and massive increases in deficits and debt.' John Ricci, the Yale Budget Lab's associate director of policy analysis, said: 'It's unambiguous that low- and moderate-income Americans will be worse off on average under the budget bill, and that's principally because the cuts in Medicaid and Snap [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] would by definition fall most heavily on these groups,' Ricci said. Jeanne Lambrew, the Century Foundation's director of health policy reform, estimates that at least 16 million Americans will lose health coverage because of the budget bill – refuting White House claims that 'no one will lose coverage'. Lambrew said the bill would cause a more than a 50% increase in the number of uninsured nationwide, to nearly 45 million people. What's more, the Trump-backed plan sharply reduces Affordable Care Act subsidies, and that will force millions of Americans to either drop coverage or pay far more for coverage. Millions of Americans will find it harder to obtain healthcare, with many forced to take on far more medical debt. While Trump and many Republicans say the Medicaid cuts are all about reducing 'waste fraud and abuse,' Lambrew calculates that a mere 3.5% of the $1tn in healthcare cuts come from cutting waste and abuse. 'What Trump has been saying is, 'We're not cutting Medicaid. We're just cutting fraud.' That's gaslighting.' Lambrew said. Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, sent the Senate a letter that harshly criticized the budget bill. 'As Pope Leo XIV recently stated, it is the responsibility of politicians to promote and protect the common good, including by working to overcome great wealth inequality,' he wrote. 'This bill does not answer this call. It takes from the poor to give to the wealthy.' According to a Quinnipiac University poll, only 27% of registered voters support the GOP budget bill, while 53% oppose it. A Fox News poll found that 38% support the bill, while 59% oppose it. The House bill's deep cuts in food benefits will cause 7 million people, including over 2 million children, to lose food aid or have their food aid cut significantly. The Trump-supported bill also makes sharp cuts in Pell Grant awards. The Center for American Progress says this means 4.4 million students from low- and moderate-income families could lose some or all of their federal grant aid. In another blow to Americans earning under $50,000, Trump pushed to have the budget bill eliminate the 'Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program', which, as one website put it, 'keeps poor people from freezing to death at home'. Killing the program would end heating subsidies for 6 million Americans, but so far congressional Republicans have spared the program and not bowed to Trump on this. In another blow to blue-collar Americans, the bill would undo much of Joe Biden's efforts to speed the creation of clean-energy industries, and that could put hundreds of thousands of potential jobs at risk, many of them factory jobs. 'In this bill, folks in Congress went out of their way not to give anything to low-income people,' said Chuck Marr, vice-president for federal tax policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. He noted that in previous tax cut bills that favored the rich, GOP lawmakers made sure to include some sweeteners for low- and moderate-income Americans. 'But in this bill,' Marr said, 'folks in Congress said: no, we're going to go after these people. They're going after healthcare and food, and these are the people who are also going to get hammered by Trump's tariffs.' Lower-income people spend a higher percentage of their income on goods. 'This bill is a major shift,' Marr added. 'They're taking away from poor people and working-class people and channeling it to very high-income people. I think it's punitive. It's harsh. I mean, brutal.' Trump's tariffs would also hit less affluent Americans hardest. One study found that Trump's planned tariffs would cause the bottom 20% of households to pay up to 5.5% of their income toward tariff-caused higher prices. That's more than two and a half times the percentage that those in the top 20% would pay (2.1% of income). Trump has repeatedly boasted that the bill contains several provisions he championed to help working-class Americans. At a White House event to promote the bill, he pointed to a DoorDash driver from Wisconsin who was on hand to help make his case that the 'no tax on tips' provision would help workers. But tax experts say that provision will help only a tiny fraction of those earning under $50,000. Only 4% of workers in the bottom half by income are in tipped jobs. Moreover, nearly two-fifths of tipped workers are already earning so little that they don't pay federal income taxes. 'Given how the current income tax system works, this provision will provide little or no benefit to those workers,' said Ricci. 'Those workers tend to have low incomes, and the US system doesn't basically tax their incomes, and this won't offer them any additional tax reduction.' In other words, the server making $100,000 a year at a high-end restaurant will benefit substantially from no tax on tips, while the hotel housekeeper or 20-hour-a-week waiter at a diner making $25,000 a year will be helped little or not at all. As for Trump's much-ballyhooed 'no tax on overtime' provision, that, too, will do little for those earning under $50,000, Ricci said. 'That provision is really geared to middle- and upper-middle groups,' he said. 'People in the bottom 50% aren't paying much income tax, and so no tax on overtime wouldn't benefit them much. People in the bottom 40%, they're often in a precarious employment situation. They're generally not working 45 or 50 hours a week.' Ricci estimated that for Americans in the bottom 40% by income, the no tax on overtime provision will mean 'less than a $10 tax cut per year'. 'It's essentially a rounding error,' he said. Republicans boast that increasing the child-tax credit will help millions of struggling families – the House bill would increase that credit, now $2,000, to $2,500, while the Senate raises it to $2,200. Under current law, one in four children – about 17 million – are ineligible to qualify for the full $2,000 credit because their family's income is too low to qualify for the full credit. A two-parent family with two children needs to earn over $48,000 to obtain the full credit. Under the House bill, a single parent with two children who earns $16,000 a year would get no additional tax credit, while a married couple with two kids and a $400,000 income would see their tax credit jump by $1,000. With their eagerness to cut the social safety net, Republicans seem to be treating millions of Americans who earn less than $50,000 as undeserving takers. 'People earning under $50,000 are major targets of the Republican agenda. Their health coverage is targeted. Their food security is targeted,' said Marr. 'They are left out of key provisions expanding tax cuts, like the child tax credit. They are most at risk from the Republican tariffs. They'll be hurt across the board.' Marr said the budget bill treats 'these people very harshly'. 'It's the harshest bill we've ever seen since budget deficits became an issue 40 years ago,' he said. 'This is the first bill that simultaneously targets programs for poor people and working-class people to pay for it, and then takes that money to pay for tax cuts for very wealthy people. It makes poor and working-class people worse off. That's not been done before.'
