SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
food stamps
'Disgusting': Republicans Applaud as Trump Brags About Taking Food Aid From Millions
"His Big Ugly Bill ripped food away from hungry moms, kids, and seniors to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," said one House Democrat.
Feb 25, 2026
US President Donald Trump received a standing ovation from Republican lawmakers and administration officials Tuesday night when he bragged during his State of the Union address about taking nutrition assistance from millions, which he euphemistically characterized as lifting people off food stamps.
"In one year, we have lifted 2.4 million Americans—a record—off of food stamps," Trump said during his nearly two-hour speech.
The Republican reconciliation package that Trump signed into law last summer included $187 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over a 10-year period, the largest cuts to the program in US history.
Trump: "In one year, we have lifted 2.4 million Americans -- a record -- off of food stamps" (In other words, Republicans cut food stamps) pic.twitter.com/19EoNEUmPF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 25, 2026
The Republican law includes reductions in federal nutrition funding for states—which administer SNAP—as well as expanded work requirements, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated would strip nutrition benefits from "roughly 2.4 million people in an average month" over the next decade.
As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted in a recent analysis, changes enacted by the Trump-GOP law mean that "for the first time in the 50-year history of the modern SNAP program, the federal government will no longer ensure that the lowest-income people, including children, older adults, veterans, and people with disabilities, in every state have access to the food assistance they need because states that refuse to pay the cost share could see the program end."
Shortly after Trump signed the Republican megabill into law, his administration canceled an annual US Department of Agriculture survey aimed at measuring food insecurity, undercutting efforts to track the impact of the unprecedented SNAP cuts. The USDA's final reports estimated that nearly 48 million people in the US faced food insecurity in 2024—including nearly one in five households with children.
"Trump says he 'lifted' millions off food stamps," Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) wrote in response to the president's State of the Union remarks. "But what he really means is his Big Ugly Bill ripped food away from hungry moms, kids, and seniors to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The lies are blatant and disgusting."
Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) denounced her Republican colleagues for their celebratory response to Trump's boast.
"They're applauding ripping food out of people’s mouths to fund their tax cuts for billionaires," McBride wrote on social media.
USDA data released ahead of Trump's speech shows that around 696,000 fewer people received SNAP benefits in November 2025 compared to the previous month.
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst on the food assistance team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that "people haven’t been dropping off SNAP because they no longer need help."
"Economic conditions haven’t improved and groceries haven’t gotten more affordable," Bergh added. "They're losing basic food assistance because of policy choices. Allowing this trend to continue is also a policy choice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Make Sure Everyone Knows: This Destructive Bill Is the Trump Trash Fire
As the preeminent bully of our Times, TRUMP lusts to brand people and groups he dislikes with pejorative nicknames. It is time to return the Favor.
Jul 04, 2025
The narrow passage of the Trump-GOP 1,100-page bill that spells death, destruction, and deprivation to the American people—including MAGA voters and innocents abroad—should destroy the Trumpster Republicans in the 2026 congressional election.
However, by then it will be too late for poor American children facing President Donald Trump reducing the food stamp programs; the 15 million Americans being thrown off Medicaid; the damage to or the termination of many clean solar energy and wind energy sales; the body blow to electric car prospects; the young Americans benefitting from AmeriCorps, Job Corps, student loans, and VA medical benefits. The Trump cuts will also undermine housing assistance programs, Meals on Wheels, disability assistance programs, and Head Start. Millions of desperate humans overseas are already cut off suddenly from USAID medicine, food supplements, clean drinking water, and other lifesavers that cost a few dollars per life saved. Tens of thousands have already died. (See Nicholas Kristof’s articles: “Musk Said No One Has Died Since Aid Was Cut. That Isn’t True.” “White House Billionaires Take On the World’s Poorest Kids.”).
Why is Trump (Elon Musk is now vehemently against the bill) doing this to all the people—red states, blue states? Why is he opening the air and water pollution spigots; stoking the greenhouse gases of the oil, gas, coal infernos (“Drill Baby Drill”); damaging people’s health everywhere? Didn’t Trump constantly pledge to his voters last year the paradise, the prosperity, the peace touted in his MAGA—Make America Great Again rhetoric?
If the Democrats had a strategic sense, they would PUT THE TRUMP BRAND ON EVERY DAMAGING, CRUEL, VICIOUS IMPACT ON INNOCENT PEOPLE, CHILDREN, MOTHERS, AND FATHERS, AND THE ELDERLY.
Of course, he lied, fooled, flattered, and flummoxed enough voters. Sadly, the feeble corporate Democrats allowed Trump to gain the White House and achieve his real objective, which is MATA OR MAKE AMERICA TRUMP AGAIN.
As Mark Green and I, (See, “Wrecking America: How Trump’s Lawbreaking and Lies Betray All,” 2020) together with scores of psychologists observing Trump over the years, described this failed gambling czar, airline owner, university owner, etc., as a dangerously unstable, egomaniacal, vengeful person fueled by daily lying and fantasies who promotes harmful policies supporting him and other corporate greedhounds.
Trump’s bellowing, snarling, false accusations and broken promises in thousands of tweets, utterances, phone calls, and speeches demonstrate that he is a fascist dictator, willing to issue illegal executive orders and dictates.
What are Trump’s goals?
First, he wants to use the White House as a massive business opportunity to make him and his family fabulously wealthy. He wants more tax escapes for the wealthy and giant corporations; privileged personal family investments in crypto-currency that he is now de-regulating; to sell memorabilia, including Bibles (he has violated 7 out of the 10 Commandments and never goes to Church); to cut profitable deals with rich Arab nations and billionaires looking for favorable treatment; and to freeze federal minimum wages and pull down worker rights all to feed his and his class warfare friends’ insatiable avarice!
Second, Trump wants VENGENCE—taking it out on critics, political opponents, prosecutors, and using immigrants as a mass media scapegoated diversion that whip his core MAGA loyalists into a constant frenzy. His pathological vengeance includes going after universities, law firms, mainstream media owners who are, respectively, studying, suing, or reporting his daily crimes, obstruction of justice, shredding of the Constitution, and federal statutes that may produce challenges to his tyranny, burgeoning police state, and physical threats to members of Congress, governors, and the surviving federal civil servants who dare challenge what Vice President JD Vance, before his ambitious conversion, called “America’s Hitler.”
Remember, how many times Trump has followed his lawless acts with the words “this is just the beginning.” This corporation, masquerading as a human being, has long said that “with Article II, I can do whatever I want as president,” now backed by the Supreme Courts’ June 2024 reckless and abdicatory decision (6 to 3) in Trump vs. U.S. immunizing presidents from criminal prosecution for their official acts (undefined). This is why, drunk with his own power, he can say, “I run the country and the world.”
Third, entrench and immunize the rule of the Super-rich, the Plutocracy—that Trump wants to and has to curry the favor of with unprecedented giveaways and sweetheart deals. Accordingly, he bloats the Pentagon budget beyond what the Generals asked for ($150 billion more in the BIG WRECKING AMERICA BILL just passed). He gives Wall Street and the Fossil Fuel corporations everything they want—no regulation, no prosecutions, massive tax cuts, and dangerous new technology without legal or ethical restraints, to even protect our children.
He fires the federal cops on the corporate crime beat, drops over 120 pending corporate prosecutions started under former President Joe Biden, fires federal agency Inspectors general who would have watchdogged his Administration, pushes out scientists and health specialists and weather experts whose work is to forewarn the people of oncoming natural disasters.
It is astonishing how much Trump gets away with. He and his cronies explain their cuts to just about every people-benefiting program, including firing 25,000 IRS staffers who service our calls or investigate complex corporate tax evasion. They claim, without details, that people cheat on their Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, and food programs. BUT THEY IGNORE MASSIVE CHEATING AND STEALING BY CORPORATE CROOKS FROM MEDICAID, MEDICARE, AND OTHER SAFETY NET PROGRAMS IN THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR. THEY PROTECT COMPARABLE SUMS OF CORPORATE SUBSIDIES THAT WERE UNTOUCHED BY TRUMP-MUSK AND ALLOW A VAST, WASTEFUL, UNAUDITED PENTAGON BUDGET TO GET BIGGER.
For example, a few days ago, Dan Diamond of The Washington Post reported a huge “Fraud Bust” by the government, started under Biden, an “alleged $10.6 billion fraud scheme” involving shell corporations, foreign and domestic thieves billing, in the names of hacked beneficiaries, Medicare for millions of urinary catheters, glucose monitors, and other supplies. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in Congress recognized corporate crime, corporate subsidies, and corporate bloated contracts as the key factors in the infliction of the cruel treatment of the American people across the board. Without robust corporate law and order, corporate abuse knows no bounds.
The treachery and betrayal by Trump and his GOP ( “Gougers of People”) of the American people is unprecedented. It is only a matter of time before hundreds of millions of the American people will experience the pain and be exposed to the silent violence caused by Trump.
If the Democrats had a strategic sense, they would PUT THE TRUMP BRAND ON EVERY DAMAGING, CRUEL, VICIOUS IMPACT ON INNOCENT PEOPLE, CHILDREN, MOTHERS, AND FATHERS, AND THE ELDERLY. Scuttling budgets and preparations for pandemics and climate disasters should be labelled with TRUMP’S name. Huge rip-offs of consumers after Trump collapsed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s law enforcement should be labeled TRUMP’S RIP-OFFS. Increased child hunger and patients thrown off Medicaid should be acknowledged as “Brought to you by DONALD TRUMP.” And much more. Signs, billboards, and social media portrayals of the Trump carnage are urgently needed.
As the preeminent bully of our Times, TRUMP lusts to brand people and groups he dislikes with pejorative nicknames. It is time to return the Favor. TRUMP THE EVERYDAY WRECKING BALL OF AMERICA AND ITS CITIZENRY HAS TO GO!
(See, Civic Self-Respect by Ralph Nader, 2025.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Big Ugly Bill Is Fascism in Writing
It establishes an anti-immigrant police state in America, replete with a standing army of ICE agents and a gulag of detention facilities, and it was passed by a narrow margin despite popular opinion.
Jul 03, 2025
President Donald Trump’s 940-page Big Ugly Bill was passed today by the House and is now on the way to the White House for Trump’s signature.
It is a disgrace. It takes more than $1 trillion out of Medicaid—leaving about 12 million Americans without insurance by 2034—and slashes Food Stamps, all to give a giant tax cut to wealthy Americans.
It establishes an anti-immigrant police state in America, replete with a standing army of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and a gulag of detention facilities that will transform ICE into the most heavily funded law enforcement agency in the government.
The best analogy isn’t to Lyndon Johnson. It’s to the “strongmen” of the 1930s—Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Franco.
It will increase the already-bloated deficit by $3.4 trillion.
It’s also disgraceful because of how it came to be.
Trump was elected with only a plurality of American voters, not a majority. He eked out his win by a margin of only 1.5%.
His Big Ugly Bill squeaked by in the Senate by one vote, supplied by Vice President JD Vance, and by just two votes in the House. No Democrat in either chamber voted for it.
Polls show most Americans oppose it.
It was passed nevertheless—within an artificial deadline set by Trump—because of Trump’s total grip on the Republican Party.
Republican lawmakers feared that Trump would go after defectors with public attacks or endorsements of primary challengers.
They also feared withering blowback from conservative media, “MAGA” diehards, and Trump himself on social media.
After North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis announced his opposition to the bill, Trump posted on Truth Social, “Tillis is a talker and complainer, NOT A DOER! He’s even worse than Rand ‘Fauci’ Paul!”
Then Trump pledged to back a primary challenger to Tillis, and Tillis announced he would not seek reelection. Trump called that “good news,” and threatened primary challenges against other Republican fiscal conservatives standing in the way of the bill’s passage.
Other presidents in my lifetime have been able to summon majorities of lawmakers for unpopular causes—I think of Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—but none with the retributive threats, social media fury, and potentially violent base of supporters that Trump is now wielding.
Needless to say, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts made America more inclusive. Trump’s Big Ugly Bill makes America crueler.
The best analogy isn’t to Lyndon Johnson. It’s to the “strongmen” of the 1930s—Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Franco.
That such a regressive, dangerous, gargantuan, and unpopular piece of legislation could get through Congress shows how far Trump has dragged America into modern fascism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Big, Ugly Bill Will Leave America Sick, Hungry, and More Unequal Than Ever
Never before in the history of this nation has such a large redistribution of income been directed upward, for no reason at all.
Jun 30, 2025
One of my objectives in this daily letter is to equip you with the facts you need. As the Senate approaches a vote on President Donald Trump’s giant “big beautiful” tax and budget bill, I want to be as clear as possible about it.
First, it will cost a budget-busting $3.3 trillion. According to new estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Senate bill would add at least $3.3 trillion to the already out-of-control national debt over a decade. That’s nearly $1 trillion more than the House-passed version.
Second, it will cause 11.8 million Americans to lose their health coverage. The Senate version would result in even deeper cuts in federal support for health insurance, and more Americans losing coverage, than the House version. Federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare would be reduced by more than $1.1 trillion over that period—with more than $1 trillion of those cuts coming from Medicaid alone.
All told, this will leave 11.8 million more Americans uninsured by 2034.
If the bill now being considered by the Senate is enacted, 11.8 million Americans will lose their health insurance, millions will fall into poverty, and the national debt will increase by $3.3 trillion, all to provide a major tax cut mainly to the rich and big corporations.
Third, it will cut food stamps and other nutrition assistance for lower-income Americans. According to the CBO, the legislation will not only cut Medicaid by about 18%, it will cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) by roughly 20%. These cuts will constitute the most dramatic reductions in safety net spending in modern U.S. history.
Fourth, it will overwhelmingly benefit the rich and big corporations. The CBO projects that those in the bottom tenth of the income distribution will end up poorer, while the top tenth will be substantially richer.
The bill also makes permanent the business tax cuts from the 2017 legislation, further benefiting the largest corporations.
Finally, it will not help the economy. Trickle-down economics has proven to be a cruel hoax. Over the last 50 years, Congress has passed four major bills that cut taxes: the 1981 Reagan tax cuts; the 2001 and 2003 George W. Bush tax cuts; and the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Each time, the same three arguments were made in favor of the tax cuts: (1) They’d pay for themselves. (2) They’d supercharge economic growth. (3) They’d benefit everyone.
All have been proven wrong. Here’s what in fact happened:
(1) Did the tax cuts pay for themselves?
No. Rather than paying for themselves, the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts each significantly increased the federal deficit. In total, those tax cuts have added over $10.4 trillion to the federal deficit since 1981 compared with the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline projections.
(2) Did the tax cuts supercharge economic growth, create millions of jobs, and raise wages?
Absolutely not. Rather than growing, the economy shrank after passage of the Reagan tax cuts. And unemployment surged to over 10%. Following the enactment of the Bush and Trump tax cuts, the economy did grow a bit, but at rates much lower than their supporters predicted.
(3) Did the tax cuts benefit everyone?
Heavens, no. Rather than benefiting everyone, the savings from the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts flowed mainly to the richest Americans. The average tax cut for households in the top 1% under the Reagan tax cut ($47,147) was 68 times larger than the average tax cut for middle-class households ($695). The Bush tax cut for households in the top 1% was 16 times larger than the average tax cut for the middle class. The 2017 Trump tax cut for households in the top 1% was 36 times larger than for middle-class households.
Summary: If the bill now being considered by the Senate is enacted, 11.8 million Americans will lose their health insurance, millions will fall into poverty, and the national debt will increase by $3.3 trillion, all to provide a major tax cut mainly to the rich and big corporations. There is no justification for this.
Never before in the history of this nation has such a large redistribution of income been directed upward, for no reason at all. It comes at a time of near-record inequalities of income and wealth.
What you can do: Call your senators and tell them to vote “no” on this calamitous tax and budget bill. Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121.
Beyond this, help ensure that senators who vote in favor of this monstrosity are booted out of the Senate as soon as they’re up for reelection.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Workers Built the Platform Economy, But They’re Not Seeing Its Rewards
By classifying workers as contractors, platform companies avoid paying core employment obligations while retaining tight control over how the work is done.
May 29, 2025
Alejandro G. thought that driving full-time for Uber in Houston offered freedom—flexible hours, quick cash, and time to care for his young son. But that promise faded fast.
“There are hours when I make $20,” he told me. “And there are hours when I make $2.” As his pay dropped, he pawned his computer and camera, began rationing the insulin he takes to manage his diabetes—putting his health at risk—and started driving seven days a week, often late into the night, just to break even.
Alejandro, whose real name is withheld for his privacy, is one of millions of workers powering a billion-dollar labor model built on legal loopholes. Companies like Uber insist they are tech platforms, not employers, and that their workers are independent contractors. This sleight of hand allows them to sidestep minimum wage laws, paid sick leave, and other workplace protections, while shifting the financial risks and responsibilities of employment onto the workers. It also lets them avoid employer taxes, draining funds from public coffers.
If gig workers were properly classified, public companies would have to disclose pay data, showing just how far below the median these workers earn, and how high executive compensation soars above them.
A new Human Rights Watch report looks at seven major platform companies operating in the U.S.—Amazon Flex, DoorDash, Favor, Instacart, Lyft, Shipt, and Uber—and finds that their labor model violates international human rights standards. These companies promise flexibility and opportunity, but the reality for many workers is far more precarious. In a survey of 127 platform workers in Texas, we found that after subtracting expenses and benefits, the median hourly pay was just $5.12, including tips. This is nearly 30% below the federal minimum wage, and about 70% below a living wage in Texas.
Seventy-five percent of workers we surveyed said they had struggled to pay for housing in the past year. Thirty-five percent said they couldn’t cover a $400 emergency expense. Over a third had been in a work-related car accident. Many said they sold possessions, relied on food stamps, or borrowed from family and friends to get by. Their labor keeps the system running—but the system isn’t built to work for them.
By classifying workers as contractors, platform companies avoid paying core employment obligations while retaining tight control over how the work is done. The platforms often use algorithms and automated systems to assign jobs, set pay rates, monitor performance, and deactivate workers without warning. In our survey, 65 workers said they feared being cut off from a platform, and 40 had already experienced it. Nearly half were later cleared of wrongdoing.
Companies use incentives that feel like rewards but function more like traps. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash dangle “quests,” “challenges,” and “surges” to push workers to stay on a shift for longer or hit quotas. These schemes lure workers into chasing bonuses that rarely reflect the true cost of the work. One Uber driver in Houston said, “They are like puppet masters. They psychologically manipulate you.”
Access to higher-paying gigs is also conditioned on behavior. Platforms use customer ratings and performance scores to shape who gets the best jobs. One Shipt worker in Michigan said her pay plummeted immediately after she received two four-star reviews, down from her usual five. Ratings are hard to challenge, and recovering from a low score can take weeks. Workers feel forced to accept every job and appease every customer, reinforcing a system that rewards compliance over fairness.
These aren’t the conditions of self-employment. They’re the conditions of control.
This labor model also drains public resources. In Texas alone, Human Rights Watch estimates that misclassification of platform workers in ride share, food delivery, and in-home services cost the state over $111 million in unemployment insurance contributions between 2020 and 2022. These are public funds that could have strengthened social protection or public services. Instead, they’re absorbed into corporate profits—a quiet transfer of public wealth into private hands.
In 2024, Uber reported $43.9 billion in revenue and nearly $10 billion in net income, calling the fourth quarter its “strongest ever.” DoorDash pulled in $10.72 billion, up 24% from the previous year. Combined, their market valuation exceeds $250 billion.
But workers are pushing back, and policymakers are starting to listen. From June 2 to 13, the 113th session of the International Labour Conference—the United Nations-backed forum where global labor standards are negotiated—will convene to debate a binding treaty on decent work in the platform economy. The message is clear: Workers are demanding rules that protect their rights.
The U.S. can start by updating employment classification standards and adopting clear criteria to determine whether a platform worker is truly independent. We also need greater transparency. If gig workers were properly classified, public companies would have to disclose pay data, showing just how far below the median these workers earn, and how high executive compensation soars above them.
This isn’t about rejecting technology. It’s about making sure new forms of work don’t replicate old forms of exploitation or create new ones, by hiding them behind an app.
Alejandro doesn’t need an algorithm to tell him when to work harder. He has a right to a wage he can live on, protections he can count on, and a system that doesn’t punish him for getting sick, injured, or speaking up.
He and millions like him built the platform economy. It’s time they shared more than the burden.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Let the 2017 Tax Cuts Expire
It is high time for elected leaders to admit publicly that tax increases can sometimes be necessary to allow the government to continue or even expand vital programs.
May 27, 2025
The tax cuts enacted during the first Trump administration were scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025, returning us to the higher pre-2017 tax levels.
President Donald Trump now wants Congress to renew these tax cuts. But despite deep proposed reductions in many vital programs, extending the 2017 tax rates would guarantee a huge 10-year increase in the national debt.
With only a one vote majority, House Republicans have passed a bill doing exactly this. One must hope that the Senate will not go along with this irresponsible bill.
Which would Americans prefer? To pay somewhat higher taxes but live in a thriving economy, or pay lower taxes but live in a depressed economy?
In today's circumstances, letting the reduced taxes die a natural death would be the best possible action. Although pre-2017 tax levels were far from perfect, restoring them would substantially reduce annual deficits.
This wouldn't require Congress to do anything, which is what Congress does best.
In 2017 we were told that the tax cuts would stimulate so much additional economic activity that the reduced tax rates applied to the stronger economy would "pay" for the cuts. Instead, they drove up the national debt.
The draconian program cuts that are supposed to help pay for extending the 2017 tax rates will injure many people who voted for the new administration.
What are Republican legislators more interested in: reducing budget shortfalls, or reducing the taxes of their wealthy campaign donors?
If balancing the budget were their priority, they would be willing to consider tax increases in order to avoid slashing services for America's less fortunate people—Medicaid, food stamps, housing support, taking care of veterans. And they certainly wouldn't reduce the Internal Revenue Service enforcement budget, which brings in several tax dollars for each dollar spent.
Many Republicans have taken the "Norquist Pledge" never to vote for tax increases, a pledge which is so unwise that it amounts to political malpractice. There can be situations where reducing taxes is desirable, but no responsible leader who has taken Norquist's pledge could ever vote to reduce taxes.
Voting to reduce taxes would require them to make two false assumptions. First, that they can identify exactly how much the reductions should be. And second, that new circumstances will never arise where the reductions need to be reversed.
Letting the 2017 tax reductions expire will be the only way that Republican politicians who have unwisely taken the "pledge" can act responsibly without violating the pledge, since they would not need to vote for the increased taxes that the expiration of the reductions would automatically produce.
It is high time for elected leaders to admit publicly that tax increases can sometimes be necessary to allow the government to continue or even expand vital programs.
Whacking programs like Medicaid is an especially bad idea at a time when displacement of workers by artificial intelligence (AI) means that fewer and fewer jobs will be secure. These former workers will lose their job-related medical insurance, putting their health and that of their families in jeopardy. Many ill people will die prematurely, if they haven't starved first thanks to fewer food stamps.
Everybody else would also be damaged if, as is likely, this results in a major recession.
Medical care is now about one sixth of our economy. Doctors and hospitals employ large numbers of people and are now substantial parts of many local economies. The closure of hospitals caused by reductions in Medicaid will gravely harm these localities. Abruptly injuring one sixth of our economy is not going to be a great idea!
Which would Americans prefer? To pay somewhat higher taxes but live in a thriving economy, or pay lower taxes but live in a depressed economy?
People understandably don't like taxes. Equally understandably, politicians like to tell voters what they want to hear. But they also have a duty to tell the public the truth and to educate voters about where their bread is truly buttered.
One way or another, we all need to be reminded of the old but true saying: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL!
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Proposes $4.5 Trillion Tax Giveaway to the Rich While 'Ransacking' Food Stamps and Medicaid
"House Republican leadership put a giant bullseye on Medicaid, with the intent to strip Americans of their healthcare benefits to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and big corporations."
Feb 12, 2025
House Republicans unveiled a draft budget resolution on Wednesday that calls for $4.5 trillion in tax breaks that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy while proposing $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and other programs.
Lawmakers are set to mark up the House GOP's budget blueprint on Thursday as Republicans look to craft a sprawling reconciliation bill that can pass both chambers of Congress with a simple-majority vote. Last week, Senate Republicans released their own budget resolution that proposed significant cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other spending that benefits working-class families.
"Instead of tackling rising prices and delivering relief for American families, House Republicans are charging ahead with trillions of dollars in deeply unpopular tax breaks for billionaires like Donald Trump and Elon Musk," Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said Wednesday in response to the House GOP resolution.
"And, they're paying for their billionaire handouts by ransacking healthcare, food assistance, and other vital programs that American workers and families rely on," Jacquez added.
The new resolution released by the Republican-controlled House Budget Committee specifically calls on the chamber's energy and commerce panel to "submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than" $880 billion over the next decade. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over Medicaid.
The measure also instructs the House Committee on Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over SNAP, to cut no less than $230 billion in spending between fiscal years 2025 and 2034.
"They wanna do a giant tax cut that disproportionately helps the rich while taking away people's health insurance and food while still adding trillions to the debt," Bobby Kogan, a former Senate Budget Committee staffer who is now senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, wrote in response to the resolution.
Overall, the House GOP's budget resolution calls for $2 trillion in cuts to "mandatory spending" over the next decade, taking aim at a category that includes Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and SNAP. While Social Security benefits cannot be cut through the reconciliation process, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) can.
Congressional Republicans have outlined a number of ways they could slash Medicaid and SNAP, including punitive new work requirements that analysts say would strip benefits from tens of millions of low-income people.
But Families USA executive director Anthony Wright said Wednesday that "we don't need to know the mechanisms of how Medicaid would be cut to know the impact would be catastrophic: The sheer size of the proposed cuts means millions of Americans losing coverage, hospitals and clinics plunged into budget shortfalls, and healthcare services we all depend on being eliminated."
"This budget resolution is a five-alarm fire alert for our healthcare," said Wright. "House Republican leadership put a giant bullseye on Medicaid, with the intent to strip Americans of their healthcare benefits to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and big corporations."
Kobie Christian, a spokesperson for the progressive coalition Unrig Our Economy, issued a similarly scathing statement on Wednesday, arguing that House Republicans "showed us that what they value is more tax breaks for greedy billionaires and giant corporations with everyday people paying the price."
"At a time when everyday Americans face increasingly higher prices, Speaker Johnson and his stooges want to write billionaires a check and force working-class people to foot the bill for their outrageous tax breaks for corporations and the ultra-wealthy," said Christian. "Everyday Americans will not stand for these games—it's time for Republicans in Congress to end their campaign that puts the ultra-wealthy first on the backs of the rest of us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crystal Clear' Polling Shows Voters Oppose Trump's Tax Cuts for Rich
"Voters are clear about what they want: lower prices, better jobs, vital programs protected and expanded, and for the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes."
Feb 11, 2025
The Republican Party is intent on permanently extending the 2017 tax cuts which primarily benefited the wealthiest earners and corporations—a priority that would cost an estimated $4.6 trillion and which has sent lawmakers searching for potential spending offsets including cuts to Medicare, food assistance, and renewable energy programs.
But polling released Tuesday suggested the GOP is likely to face widespread outcry—and potential opposition from vulnerable Republicans who don't want to risk angering voters—as a majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to paying for tax cuts for the wealthy by slashing public programs.
The new poll, taken by Data for Progress on behalf of the progressive advocacy groups Groundwork Collaborative and the Student Borrower Protection Center, found that although Republican lawmakers have demonized efforts to provide relief to student loan borrowers, the party's potential overhaul of the income-based repayment program isn't popular among voters of any political ideology.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they don't want the repayment plan eliminated, including 56% of Republican voters and 70% of Independents who said they oppose funding cuts for federal student loans and grants.
The GOP's plan would save an estimated $127.3 billion over 10 years by forcing the average student loan borrower to pay nearly $200 more per month.
"Most people don't have an extra $200 a month to throw toward their student loan bill," Michele Shepard Zampini, senior director of college affordability at the Institute for College Access & Success, told CNBC on Monday.
"Voters overwhelmingly reject efforts to cut critical supports that working families rely on."
Despite that fact, said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for the Student Borrower Protection Center, the GOP's budget proposals would "cut taxes for their billionaire buddies by raiding the pockets of Americans with student debt and families already struggling to pay for college."
"This polling makes it crystal clear," she said. "Voters overwhelmingly reject efforts to cut critical supports that working families rely on."
Republicans can also expect to see pushback if they attempt cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the survey found. Ninety percent of respondents said they want Medicare funding to increase or remain the same; 87% said the same for Medicaid. Republicans are planning to unveil the first-ever work requirements for Medicaid, which provides healthcare coverage for low-income people and those with disabilities, in an upcoming budget bill.
As Politico reported Sunday, Republican lawmakers are "increasingly alarmed" that Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), chair of the House Budget Committee, "keeps raising Medicare reforms as a potential spending offset."
More than 80% of respondents also don't want Republicans to make cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, which the GOP is also planning to make subject to expanded work requirements.
Those who want funding for SNAP to increase or stay the same include 67% of Republicans and 75% of Independents.
The polling may leave Republican leaders wondering what programs they will be able to cut without facing outcry from angry voters who rely on public services—but Elizabeth Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy for Groundwork Collaborative, suggested in a statement Tuesday that the answer is simple: The GOP must abandon its plan to dole out more tax breaks for the rich.
"Voters are clear about what they want: Lower prices, better jobs, vital programs protected and expanded, and for the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes," said Pancotti. "And yet, Republicans in both chambers of Congress are working overtime to achieve the exact opposite."
President Donald Trump has called on the GOP to advance his taxation, immigration, and energy agenda in "one big, beautiful bill," while Senate Republican leaders have begun work on two separate bills, with taxes dealt with later in the year.
"Whether one bill or two," said Pancotti, "House and Senate GOP members are aligned on wanting to cut lifesaving programs in order to enrich their billionaire friends and donors, and voters are taking note."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The GOP's Sneaky and Destructive Plan to Privatize Anti-Hunger Program
Privatization is often touted as a solution to bureaucratic red tape or cutting “wasteful” government spending, but in practice, it can mean cutting the experienced public workforce who administer complicated government programs.
Nov 28, 2024
The country’s largest and most important government anti-hunger program faces a renewed threat as Congress returns from recess next week: privatization.
Congress needs to reauthorize the now-expired Farm Bill—the enormous legislative package that includes funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps)—but a privatization scheme was attached to the bill.
Congress should not be using much-needed disaster relief as a back door to privatize the SNAP program’s workforce.
Earlier this Congress, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced the “SNAP Staffing Flexibility Act,” which was also adopted as an amendment to the current version of the Farm Bill. The bill would allow state agencies to hire outside contractors to administer key requirements of the SNAP program under certain conditions, such as in the aftermath of natural disasters or during pandemics and public health emergencies. Rep. Bacon and supporters of this proposal now aim to tack this provision onto the emergency disaster relief package under consideration this year. Make no mistake: This is an attempt to use emergency disaster relief as cover to privatize the SNAP program and workforce, instead of giving the SNAP program enough money to operate effectively.
Privatization is often touted as a solution to bureaucratic red tape or cutting “wasteful” government spending, but in practice, it can mean cutting the experienced public workforce who administer complicated government programs. This can result in prolonged delays, more people wrongly denied benefits, and ultimately worse outcomes for people who need the benefits most.
SNAP Is Our Most Important Anti-Hunger Program, But It Is Facing Renewed Privatization Threats
SNAP serves tens of millions of low-paid working families and other households with low incomes (including disabled and older adults). Like unemployment insurance, SNAP is responsive to the business cycle—meaning SNAP is particularly important during economic downturns when poverty and food insecurity rise. Between fiscal years 1980 and 2008, anywhere from 7 to 11% of U.S. households received SNAP. Participation grew dramatically during the Great Recession, peaking at 18.8% in fiscal year 2013 (47.6 million people).
Participation spiked again during the Covid-19 pandemic amid increased poverty and food insecurity. In fiscal year 2022, although total participation was lower than during the Great Recession (12.4% of all U.S. households participated in the program), SNAP saw a record-high participation rate among eligible individuals, equivalent to 41.2 million people receiving benefits in an average month. Expanded SNAP eligibility—alongside other relief measures such as Child Tax Credit expansions, universal free school lunches, and federal stimulus payments—kept food insecurity at bay during the height of the pandemic in 2021. However, as those programs expired—and the shocks of pandemic reopening and the Russian invasion of Ukraine led to food prices growing at an unprecedented rate—food insecurity increased in 2022.
As part of the SNAP quality control process, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) examines each state’s application processing timeliness (APT). The rate is calculated by dividing the number of SNAP applications processed by the number of applications that were expected to be processed during that period, typically 30 days since the application was submitted. In fiscal year 2023, APT rates ranged from a low of 39% in Alaska to a high of 98% in Idaho, with a median rate of 85% across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In 2023, only four states met the FNS benchmark rate of 95%. Failure to meet this benchmark is not a new phenomenon. Based on available data, no more than a third of all states have ever met the 95% timeliness standard in any given year.
Proponents of SNAP privatization often point to slow application processing rates as evidence that the existing program is inefficient and in need of “reform.” However, this argument ignores important context on these rates and its connection to declining federal funding for SNAP and shrinking public-sector employment.
Chronic Underfunding of SNAP Strains Workers and Delays Processing of Essential Benefits
SNAP is a federal-state partnership, so the federal government pays the full cost of nutrition benefits and splits the costs of administration with states, but federal spending on SNAP administration has declined over time. Meanwhile, SNAP administrators’ caseloads have grown dramatically. Many states point to administrative problems—including low staffing, hiring freezes, and high turnover—as one of the biggest barriers to improving slow processing times and backlogs.
To be clear, low APT rates are a cause for concern because they indicate that many eligible households in need of food assistance are not quickly receiving those benefits. But the solution to ensuring applicants receive their benefits quickly is simple: Policymakers must increase funding for SNAP and restore sufficient staffing levels so that case workers can process applications effectively and efficiently.
Starving SNAP of Funding Serves the Long-Term, Right-Wing Privatization Agenda
The push to privatize SNAP eligibility determinations is decades-old and has produced serious problems in states that have contracted out these services or automated certain functions of the process. When Texas outsourced its SNAP eligibility determinations to a for-profit company in 2006, thousands of people were unable to apply or were given incorrect information and many were wrongly denied benefits. Public-sector staff were then forced to fix mistakes, and eligible SNAP participants were subject to long delays to receive benefits.
Efforts to defraud the SNAP program, including misuse of benefits or selling them for cash, is very rare. However, attention to purported fraud has increased in recent years, and SNAP workers have been forced to take on additional anti-fraud measures, further delaying processing and potentially contributing to low APT rates.
The SNAP Program Needs Support, Not a License to Cut More Corners
Congress should not be using much-needed disaster relief as a back door to privatize the SNAP program’s workforce. There are other real and urgent problems with the SNAP program this year—for instance, families have had their SNAP benefits stolen by card “skimmers” when they swipe their cards at grocery store cash registers. In 2022, Congress passed a provision that would allow states to pay back the stolen benefits to victims of theft, but that has since expired.
Farm Bill reauthorization should focus on preserving nutrition assistance benefits without cuts and on reducing administrative burdens and red tape for SNAP recipients, applicants, and staff—all of which could help reduce backlogs and improve how quickly people can receive their benefits. And disaster relief spending should focus on providing aid to vulnerable communities trying to rebuild after storms—not opportunistically trying to cut corners and privatize vital services.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Imagine If the Fight Was Over How to Improve and Expand Medicare and Social Security—Not Destroy Them
If we help families survive rocky times rather than fall deeper into poverty, all of us benefit as a society; if we don’t, then millions of stories like mine won’t be possible.
Jun 02, 2024
Life is unpredictable. And sometimes, no matter how hard you work, life throws curve balls that hit you in the gut.
That’s what our tax dollars are supposed to be for—a helping hand when we’re most in need. More than once in my life, the social safety net came through for my family. And thanks to that help, we’re able to give back today.
My mother worked hard as a carpenter and educator for most of the years I was growing up. But her income just wasn’t enough to pay for rent, food, childcare, and other basic needs.
Imagine what our nation would look like if we fully invested in the programs most of us need at one time or another rather than constantly fighting to keep the little we have.
Thankfully, she kept us fed with WIC (the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition assistance program), SNAP (then called “food stamps”), and frequent visits to food pantries. And after living in a shelter for the first three years of my life, we were able to get Section 8 housing.
But life continued to throw curve balls.
My mom suffered a stroke while pregnant with my brother, who was born prematurely in 2002. She had to relearn how to walk and talk—and my brother needed serious health interventions due to complications of his premature birth. Thankfully, we got some help from Social Security and Medicare.
All of these supports enabled me to get an education, get into college, and help my family.
When my mother’s health failed to the point that she was on dialysis, my 10-year-old little brother needed to be cared for. So I moved him halfway across the country to live with me. Suddenly, I was a student, a worker, and a young single caretaker.
My mother recently passed away. But thanks to her hard work and the help we got from public programs, I was able to get a master’s degree. After experiencing the vital importance of those programs, I knew I had to devote my life to helping others access the same assistance that had been life-saving for me and my family.
I now work at an organization in Indianapolis, where I help residents achieve their family goals through basic needs support, community engagement, and case management. Ultimately, we explore the barriers keeping families from economic stability and work with them to find solutions.
My little brother, meanwhile, is 21 and a trade school graduate. He’s gainfully employed as an aircraft cleaner at the local airport and a production associate at a manufacturing company. I’m so proud of all that we’ve been able to accomplish because help was there for us when we needed it.
Yet even as I tell my story, there are lawmakers who would cut affordable housing and rental assistance programs. They would slash nutrition programs and Medicaid. There are even lawmakers and cities who seek to criminalize homelessness, which has now gotten the attention of the Supreme Court.
The deep cuts to social programs the House majority has proposed would slash investments that are already insufficient. Due to the lack of affordable housing in this country, only 1 in 4 eligible families actually receive housing vouchers like my family relied on. These cuts would make it even harder.
Thanks to the help we got, we give back as good as we received and more—that’s how a healthy system works. If we help families survive rocky times rather than fall deeper into poverty, all of us benefit as a society. If we don’t, then millions of stories like mine won’t be possible.
Imagine what our nation would look like if we fully invested in the programs most of us need at one time or another rather than constantly fighting to keep the little we have. We shouldn’t be cutting our public programs—we should be expanding them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy