SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Scott's proposal for more draconian cuts has renewed scrutiny regarding his past as a hospital executive, where he oversaw the "largest government fraud settlement ever," which included stealing from Medicaid.
Sen. Rick Scott has introduced an amendment to the Republican budget bill that would slash another $313 million from Medicaid and kick off millions more recipients.
The latest analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that 17 million people could lose their health insurance by 2034 as the result of the bill as it already exists.
According to a preliminary estimate by the Democrats on the Joint Congressional Economic Committee, that number could balloon up to anywhere from 20 to 29 million if Scott's (R-Fla.) amendment passes.
The amendment will be voted on as part of the Senate's vote-a-rama, which is expected to run deep into Monday night and possibly into Tuesday morning.
"If Sen. Rick Scott's amendment gets put forward, this would be a self-inflicted healthcare crisis," said Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress.
The existing GOP reconciliation package contains onerous new restrictions, including new work requirements and administrative hurdles, that will make it harder for poor recipients to claim Medicaid benefits.
Scott's amendment targets funding for the program by ending the federal government's 90% cost sharing for recipients who join Medicaid after 2030. Those who enroll after that date would have their medical care reimbursed by the federal government at a lower rate of 50%.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced the increased rate in 2010 to incentivize states to expand Medicaid, allowing more people to be covered.
Scott has said his program would "grandfather" in those who had already been receiving the 90% reimbursement rate.
However, Medicaid is run through the states, which will have to spend more money to keep covering those who need the program after 2030.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that this provision "would shift an additional $93 billion in federal Medicaid funding to states from 2031 through 2034 on top of the cuts already in the Senate bill."
This will almost certainly result in states having to cut back, by introducing their stricter requirements or paperwork hurdles.
Additionally, nine states have "trigger laws" that are set to end the program immediately if the federal matching rate is reduced: Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.
The Joint Congressional Economic Committee estimated Tuesday that around 2.5 million more people will lose their insurance as a result of those cuts.
If all the states with statutory Medicaid expansion ended it as a result of Scott's cuts, as many as 12.5 million could lose their insurance. Combined with the rest of the bill, that's potentially 29 million people losing health insurance coverage, the committee said.
A chart shows how many people are estimated to lose healthcare coverage with each possible version of the GOP bill.(Chart: Congressional Joint Economic Committee Democrats)
There are enough Republicans in the Senate to pass the bill with Scott's amendment. However, they can afford no more than three defections. According to Politico, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have signaled they will vote against the amendment.
Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.V.) also said he'd "have a hard time" voting yes on the bill if Scott's amendment passed. His state of West Virginia has the second-highest rate of people using federal medical assistance of any state in the country, behind only Mississippi.
Critics have called out Scott for lying to justify this line of cuts. In a recent Fox News appearance, Scott claimed that his new restrictions were necessary to stop Democrats who want to "give illegal aliens Medicaid benefits," even though they are not eligible for the program.
Scott's proposal has also brought renewed scrutiny to his past as a healthcare executive.
"Ironically enough, some of the claims against Scott's old hospital company revolved around exploiting Medicaid, and billing for services that patients didn't need," wrote Andrew Perez in Rolling Stone Monday.
In 2000, Scott's hospital company, HCA, was forced to pay $840 million in fines, penalties, and damages to resolve claims of unlawful billing practices in what was called the "largest government fraud settlement ever." Among the charges were that during Scott's tenure, the company overbilled Medicare and Medicaid by pretending patients were sicker than they actually were.
The company entered an additional settlement in 2003, paying out another $631 million to compensate for the money stolen from these and other government programs.
Scott himself was never criminally charged, but resigned in 1997 as the Department of Justice began to probe his company's activities. Despite the scandal, Scott not only became a U.S. senator, but is the wealthiest man in Congress, with a net worth of more than half a billion dollars.
The irony of this was not lost on Perez, who wrote: "A few decades later, Scott is now trying to extract a huge amount of money from state Medicaid funds to help finance Trump's latest round of tax cuts for the rich."
"When people can't get their benefits for any reason, that is a benefit cut," said one advocate.
A new analysis out Friday makes the case that cuts proposed by the Trump administration to Social Security operations nationwide will create a "significant new burden" for millions of people, particularly "those who live in rural areas or have transportation or mobility difficulties."
Those who collect Social Security benefits will no longer be able to update their direct deposit banking information solely by phone. Instead of verifying their identity via security questions over the phone, the agency will require those who rely on Social Security to use a multifactor authentication process that includes a one-time PIN code or to visit a social security office in person.
The left-leaning think tank behind the new analysis, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), warned Friday that even though Trump officials within the SSA have claimed that the policy shift is designed to reduce fraud, "the agency's own figures show that direct deposit fraud is a very small problem—less than one-hundredth of one percent of benefits are misdirected."
A document from the agency gives "estimated burden figures," which indicates that nearly 2 million beneficiaries will need to visit a field office as a result of the changed process.
An April analysis from CBPP estimated that some 6 million live more than a 45-mile trip away from the nearest Social Security field office.
"The new PIN code requirement will be impossible for many beneficiaries to meet," according to the analysis from CBPP released Friday. "Many seniors and people with disabilities lack internet service, computers or smartphones, or the technological savvy to navigate SSA's online services."
What's more, the analysis states, "the PIN requirement expects callers to complete a multi-step, multifactor authentication and generate a PIN code while on the phone with an agent. Or if they don't have an account, they must hang up, establish an online account, then call back—a not-insignificant inconvenience when most callers to SSA do not reach an agent on the first try, and the wait time for a call back from SSA averages 2.5 hours."
Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, told Common Dreams on Friday that the CBPP analysis helps show how "the Trump administration and its goons are waging a full scale war against Social Security. They are forcing millions of Americans into Social Security offices at the same time they are cutting a huge percentage of the workforce."
"They are forcing millions of Americans into Social Security offices at the same time they are cutting a huge percentage of the workforce," Lawson added. "The Trump-Musk regime has one goal: Wreak Social Security so they can rob it. When people can't get their benefits for any reason, that is a benefit cut."
Trump, with the help of his billionaire advisor Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, have endeavored to slash government spending and personnel. A tracker from The New York Times estimates that there has been a 5% staff reduction at SSA, but total planned reductions at the agency could ultimately cut staff by 17%.
Reporting from NPR from last week highlighted how workers at the SSA are struggling to keep up, with fewer staff working to serve over 70 million beneficiaries.
"If you want better roads, better schools, better healthcare, better public transit... or just a generally better life, then the best way of funding that is by taxing the ultrawealthy, not allowing them to exploit more tax loopholes."
While ultrawealthy Americans are unlikely to face any extra federal taxes any time soon due to the makeup of Congress, legislators in at least 10 U.S. states this year are aiming to pass tax policies targeting their richest residents to raise revenue for the common good.
Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Washington introduced coordinated wealth tax bills a year ago. Some were inspired by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) 2020 presidential campaign proposal, which featured a 2% annual tax for assets above $50 million and a 3% tax for assets over $1 billion.
Now, less than a month into 2024, legislators in 10 states are developing or have introduced wealth tax bills. Amber Wallin of the State Revenue Alliance confirmed to The New York Times on Tuesday that all of the states that were working on such legislation last year, except Illinois, have been joined by Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
"A new wealth tax in Massachusetts last year that was expected to raise $1 billion actually raised $1.5 billion, helping to fund green infrastructure, education, and childcare."
"The way our tax structure is set up, our middle class is carrying an undue burden, compared to folks at the top," Democratic Vermont Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Windham-7), told the Times. "We want to make sure that all Vermonters are paying their fair share."
Kornheiser, who chairs the state House Committee on Ways and Means, is sponsoring H. 827, which would tax the unrealized gains of Vermonters with over $10 million in assets after exemptions, and H.828, which would impose a 3% surcharge on individuals' incomes of $500,000 or more.
The panel that Kornheiser leads discussed the legislation on Tuesday, though it remains to be seen whether the bills' backers can get them out of committee—where all of last year's proposals died. Democrats have supermajorities in both chambers of the Vermont General Assembly, but as Bloomberg noted, the hearing for the new bills was held "just hours after Republican Gov. Phil Scott presented a fiscal year 2025 budget that steers the state away from new taxes and fees."
It's not just Republican officials who pose potential roadblocks to increased taxes on the rich.
"Texas voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment in November that would preemptively bar any future efforts by the state to tax wealth or net worth," The Times pointed out. Earlier this month in California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is widely considered a possible 2028 presidential candidate, "rejected the idea of plugging the state's $37.9 billion budget deficit with a wealth tax."
Despite such opposition, polling suggests most Americans want the ultrarich to face tax hikes. Pew Research Center found last April that 6 in 10 U.S. adults say the feeling that some corporations and wealthy people don't pay their fair share bothers them a lot.
Even three-quarters of millionaires across G20 countries "support higher taxes on wealth to help address the cost-of-living crisis and improve public services," according to polling from last week. That survey was released as 260 millionaires and billionaires implored political leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to raise taxes on the wealthy.
The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) highlighted on social media Wednesday that state lawmakers already have a model proving how such legislation can improve the lives of residents: Massachusetts' Fair Share Amendment, which was passed through a 2022 ballot initiative and requires those with incomes over $1 million to pay a 4% annual surtax.
"A new wealth tax in Massachusetts last year that was expected to raise $1 billion actually raised $1.5 billion, helping to fund green infrastructure, education, and childcare," IPS said in response to the Times reporting.
Justice Democrats also welcomed news of the state-level efforts,
saying that "if you want better roads, better schools, better healthcare, better public transit... or just a generally better life, then the best way of funding that is by taxing the ultrawealthy, not allowing them to exploit more tax loopholes."
The fresh push for wealth taxes comes as states face anticipated drops in revenue. In a November analysis for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), senior adviser for state tax policy Wesley Tharpe found that as the Covid-19 pandemic raged from 2021-23, 26 states cut personal or corporate income tax rates, with half of them doing so multiple times.
Of those 26 states, only Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania have legislators working on wealth tax legislation. However, as Tharpe explained in a Wednesday blog post, federal pandemic relief has expired, and all the states that slashed taxes now "stand to collect an estimated $111 billion less over the next five years than they otherwise would have, with the price tag in lost revenues hitting nearly $30 billion a year by 2028."
"Shrinking revenues will jeopardize current levels of state support for vital public services like schools, health services, and income support programs," he warned. "They will also constrain states' future potential by limiting policymakers' ability to make new investments to tackle unmet or emerging needs and issues, such as child poverty, the health of pregnant or postpartum people, or housing affordability."
Tharpe argued that state policymakers "should seize the opportunity to break the tax-cut fever and pivot in a more equitable, prosperous, responsible, and forward-looking direction." He even provided some examples of states that "have recently shined a light on a different, brighter path of protecting and raising revenues to support current services and new investments."
In addition to Massachusetts' amendment, he pointed to Minnesota's crackdown on corporate tax avoidance and Washington's new excise tax on income from the sale of stocks and other investments, which targets the wealthiest 0.2% of Washingtonians.
"States including Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont, and the District of Columbia have also raised new revenues to fund initiatives like universal free school meals, expanded childcare and paid leave, and more affordable housing options," the CBPP expert noted. "More states should follow suit in 2024 and beyond."