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
snap
Hey Schumer and Newsom, It’s Not Leadership to Abandon the People Who Need You Most
The Democratic Party’s retreat to centrism—from welfare reform in the 90s to recent budget deals—has consistently weakened its own base while signaling to Republicans that cruelty works.
Mar 29, 2025
It’s a tale as old as American liberalism: Say the right thing—but only when it’s safe, and only after the damage is done.
Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had a choice to draw the line and stand up to a Republican-led budget that proposed slashing essential services like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Section 8 housing assistance. Instead, after publicly criticizing the bill, he reversed course in under 24 hours and urged Democrats to pass it—calling it the “best path forward to avoid a shutdown.”
This is what establishment leadership looks like: performative urgency wrapped in political safety.The families who rely on SNAP and Section 8 aren’t breathing easier because D.C. stayed open. They’re still wondering how to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.
Schumer and Newsom want to be seen as steady hands.The country doesn’t need politicians who manage decline gracefully. They need leaders who disrupt the status quo to protect the people it was never built to serve.
Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom decided to deny support to trans athletes. On the first episode of his new podcast, This Is Gavin Newsom, he said it was “deeply unfair” for trans women to compete in women’s sports—framing that echoed right-wing rhetoric used to push anti-trans legislation.
And he didn’t say it to a neutral audience—he said it toCharlie Kirk, a far-right extremist who has spent years spreading anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and promoting voter suppression through Turning Point USA.
Newsom invited him on as his first guest in an effort to appear “bipartisan.” That move alone signals more than a desire to reach across the aisle—it signals whose approval he’s seeking.
This wasn’t a spontaneous exchange—it was a calculated move, and a political wink to the center-right, packaged as “balance.” And it came from the same man who once signed a bill making California a sanctuary state for trans youth. That contrast gave right-wing media a fresh soundbite.
Even Rep.Sarah McBride (D-Del.)—the first openly trans member of Congress—recently urged Democrats to make room for people with “honest questions” about trans inclusion in sports. But those questions aren’t neutral. They’re part of a long, strategic assault on trans people’s dignity.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11), one of the few who consistently shows up for trans communities, called it out immediately: “Trans people are under attack. They need support, not betrayal.”
In March 2024, Schumer gave a speech condemning Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu and calling for elections in Israel—after more than 30,000 Palestinians were already dead. The speech was safe, and the policy—uninterrupted U.S. military aid—remained unchanged.
This is what performative politics looks like in action: too late, too safe, and too empty.
We’re told these are “tough choices.” But they’re only tough if your priority is your career. When Democrats lose ground, they often shift to the center—abandoning bold policies and the people who need them most.
But history shows that doesn’t win back power—it loses trust. As American Affairs Journal outlines, the party’s retreat to centrism—from welfare reform in the 90s to recent budget deals—has consistently weakened its own base while signaling to Republicans that cruelty works.
I know the cost of centrist politics because I lived it. In the 90s, Democrats embraced welfare reform and tough-on-crime laws to look “tough” and “moderate.”
That turn helped criminalize poverty. I was convicted of welfare fraud. I wasn’t gaming the system; I was surviving it. Whole communities were punished in the name of bipartisanship. So when Democrats today praise “moderation,” I hear echoes of policies that nearly erased me.
If you’re poor, trans, undocumented, disabled, or Palestinian—these choices don’t look tough. They look familiar.
And they cause harm. When people with power echo right-wing talking points, they legitimize them. They embolden bills that restrict bodily autonomy, gut benefits, and criminalize survival. They signal that marginalized people—their lives and dignity—are negotiable.
Schumer and Newsom want to be seen as steady hands.The country doesn’t need politicians who manage decline gracefully. They need leaders who disrupt the status quo to protect the people it was never built to serve.
So where are the leaders?
Not the ones who speak up after it’s politically safe. Not the ones who adjust their stances based on polling data, shifting with the wind instead of standing for something. Where are the ones who lead from the front?
Real leadership is not polished. It’s the woman clearing her record. It’s the trans activist running mutual aid while dodging attacks. It’s the undocumented student organizing for housing justice with no promise of safety.
And it is me, a formerly incarcerated queer Black woman who went back to college in her 50s. Who found her voice not in press rooms but in courtrooms, classrooms, and community spaces. Who survived systems designed to erase her and came back fighting for others still trapped inside them.
Real change doesn’t trickle down—it rises up. From organizing, solidarity, and movements that center the people most impacted and most ignored.
Real leaders are not waiting on permission. They are building with the people already creating justice—one expungement, one coalition, one unapologetic truth at a time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cutting Medicaid, SNAP, and Housing Assistance Will Harm Low-Income Americans
Members of House committees must carefully consider the benefits that these programs deliver to U.S. families before making decisions about where and how to make the spending cuts required by the latest budget.
Mar 15, 2025
In late February, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget resolution that calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in federal spending cuts. This resolution provides a framework for a more detailed budget bill to come, mandating certain House committees to reduce spending over the next decade on government programs under their purview—for instance, calling on the Committee on Energy and Commerce to find $880 billion in cuts, $230 billion for the Agriculture Committee, and $1 billion for the Committee on Financial Services, among others. These committees will have to make difficult decisions about where to reduce federal spending and by how much as they draft their actual budgets in the coming weeks.
The implications of their decisions will be far reaching. Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and housing assistance programs are all at risk because they fall under the jurisdiction of the committees subject to large spending cuts and comprise a major share of those committees’ spending. Cutting back on these social infrastructure programs would come at a huge cost for the well-being of U.S. families, given the well-documented benefits these programs bring to the health, education, and financial stability of participating households.
The Impact of Cutting Medicaid
The U.S. private health insurance system does not cover large groups of people—for instance, low-income elderly people who need assistance for expensive long-term care, people with disabilities, and low-income children and adults—all of whom turn to Medicaid for healthcare coverage. The Medicaid program is the second-largest program under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and appears to be a bigger target for federal spending cuts than Medicare, the largest program in their portfolio. More than half of Medicaid spending supports seniors or people with disabilities, and approximately a quarter supports low-income children and their parents, making these groups particularly vulnerable to Medicaid spending cuts.
Several decades of research show a wide range of positive impacts of past Medicaid coverage expansions. After Medicaid expansions in the 1990s, for example, the uninsurance rate decreased by approximately 11 percentage points to 12 percentage points for low-income children and their parents; it also dropped by 3 percentage points to 5 percentage points for low-income adults after the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act of 2010. These expansions also reduced the probability of personal bankruptcy by 8% and the amount of debt collection balances by an average of $1,140.
If the House Committee on Energy and Commerce turns to Medicaid to satisfy their obligation to cut spending by $880 billion over 10 years, it would reverse these improvements in the well-being of low-income Americans.
In terms of health outcomes, Medicaid expansions have reduced infant mortality by 8.5%, the incidence of low birth weight by 2.6% to 5%, and teen mortality, too. Research even shows that Medicaid coverage for children has positive health effects into adulthood, reducing the presence of chronic conditions later in life by 0.03 standard deviations. Even the health of second-generation children—that is, the offspring of those exposed to Medicaid in utero—has been shown to be positively affected.
Medicaid coverage for children also improves non-health outcomes later in life. For instance, Medicaid expansions to cover children reduced the probability of being incarcerated by 5% and improved high school graduation rates and adult income—which, together, result in higher taxes paid in adulthood. In fact, research shows that a large fraction, including possibly the entire amount, of the cost of child Medicaid coverage is recaptured by the government in terms of higher taxes paid as adults.
If the House Committee on Energy and Commerce turns to Medicaid to satisfy their obligation to cut spending by $880 billion over 10 years, it would reverse these improvements in the well-being of low-income Americans.
The Impact of Cutting Nutrition Assistance
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a joint-run federal and state program that covers 40 million low-income U.S. families per month, with each state setting eligibility requirements based on resource or income constraints of applicants. It is by far the largest spending outlay for the House Committee on Agriculture, with federal spending totaling approximately $112 billion in 2023. As a result, funding for the program is at risk as the committee looks for ways to achieve its target of $230 billion in cuts over 10 years.
Research shows that not only does nutrition assistance dramatically reduce food insecurity—by 12% to 30%—but it also has large benefits for the health, education, and long-term well-being of children in SNAP families. For example, SNAP benefits lower the probability of having a low birth-weight child by 5% to 11% and improve standardized test scores in both reading and math by about 2% of a standard deviation. The long-run impacts of receiving SNAP benefits as a child include a 3% of a standard deviation improvement in economic self-sufficiency, a 1.2-year increase in life expectancy, and a 0.5 percentage point decrease in the probability of being incarcerated.
As a result, a decision by the House Committee on Agriculture to reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program risks increased food insecurity in the short run, while also risking long-term effects for health, education, and economic outcomes of low-income U.S. children.
The Impact of Cutting Housing Assistance
The budget resolution requires the House Committee on Financial Services, which oversees housing assistance programs, to reduce spending by $1 billion over the next 10 years. Federal spending on housing assistance was $67 billion in 2023, with $32.1 billion going toward the Housing Choice Voucher program that provides subsidies for very low-income families to find housing in the private market.
Unaffordable housing is already a serious and well-known issue in the United States, with even minimally adequate housing out of reach for millions of people. Housing vouchers have been shown to reduce the percent of income paid on rent from 58% to 27%, which is within the general definition of affordable housing (no more than 30% of family income). By relieving the financial strain of high housing costs, research shows that the housing assistance program has positive effects in other dimensions as well. Housing vouchers reduce parental stress by 7% and hypertension by 50%, as well as reducing behavioral problems in children and increasing child test scores in school.
If the House Committee on Financial Services decides to reduce spending on housing assistance, many low-income families would not be able to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing, which would have a negative impact on the overall well-being of parents and children alike.
Conclusion
A number of large social programs that provide support to millions of Americans may get cut as a result of the House-passed budget resolution, with Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and housing assistance particularly at risk. This would have a profound negative impact on the health, education, and financial stability of many low-income Americans—those who need this assistance the most.
Members of these House committees must carefully consider the benefits that these programs deliver to U.S. families before making decisions about where and how to make the required spending cuts. There are no doubt inefficiencies in social programs, just as in all government programs. But across-the-board cuts of this magnitude would inevitably hurt the vulnerable groups receiving these benefits across the United States.
This piece was first published by the Washington Center for Economic Growth.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Showing You Exactly Who They're Working For,' GOP Votes to Gut Medicaid for Tax Cuts
"House Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents and instead chosen to side with their billionaire donors."
Feb 26, 2025
House Republicans rammed through their budget blueprint late Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump intervened to pressure wavering members to vote for the resolution, which jumpstarts the process of enacting sweeping cuts to Medicaid and other programs to finance trillions of dollars in proposed tax cuts primarily for the rich.
Just one Republican—Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky—joined every House Democrat in voting against the resolution, which sets the stage for $880 billion in Medicaid cuts and $230 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"Today, Republicans are cheering the passage of their extreme budget resolution that betrays the middle class," Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement following Tuesday's vote. "Their bill will impose pain and suffering on tens of millions of hardworking Americans—cutting Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, all to fund extravagant giveaways for billionaires like Elon Musk."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) added in a social media post late Tuesday that "99% of House Republicans just voted to gut Medicaid so they can lower taxes for the richest 1%."
"They're showing you exactly who they’re working for," Jayapal wrote.
"House Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents and instead chosen to side with their billionaire donors and party leadership to advance an extreme budget bill to give trillions in tax benefits to wealthy elites at the expense of workers and families."
In the lead-up to the vote, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other Republicans attempted to dodge backlash over their push for Medicaid cuts by saying the budget resolution doesn't contain the word Medicaid or explicitly recommend cuts to SNAP.
That is highly misleading. The resolution instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to "submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than" $880 billion over the next decade. That panel has jurisdiction over Medicaid, which Republicans have repeatedly targeted in public and private discussions, with one leaked GOP document floating over $2 trillion in cuts to the program.
Republicans also rejected numerous Democratic amendments that would have prevented Medicaid and SNAP cuts in the upcoming budget reconciliation process as their resolution moved through committees.
"House Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents and instead chosen to side with their billionaire donors and party leadership to advance an extreme budget bill to give trillions in tax benefits to wealthy elites at the expense of workers and families back home," said David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. "Don't buy Republican representatives' spin—this was far from a procedural vote with no consequences. This budget bill will strip healthcare, nutrition services, and education programs from millions of working and middle-class Americans to fund Trump's $5 trillion in tax giveaways to billionaires and big business."
Roll Callnoted that passage of the budget resolution marks just "the first step toward passing the mammoth reconciliation bill that House Republicans are seeking to enact Trump's agenda."
"The plan remains at odds with that of Senate Republicans, who are pursuing their own slimmer budget blueprint focused on border security and defense, while deferring tax legislation until later in the year," the outlet added.
Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement that "both the House and Senate budgets significantly miss the mark on what should be their basic goals: lowering costs, increasing opportunity, and responsibly addressing our nation's long-term priorities, including reducing future economic risks associated with high deficits."
"But the enormity of program cuts called for by the House budget stands as a singular threat to the well-being of people in every state, city, and rural community, threatening to take away their health coverage, make healthcare more expensive, and make it harder to afford food and college," said Parrott. "The quick math on the House budget shows a stark equation: The cost of extending tax cuts for households with incomes in the top 1%—$1.1 trillion through 2034—equals roughly the same amount as the proposed potential cuts for health coverage under Medicaid and food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program."
"The House Republican budget's path of higher costs for families, more people without health coverage, increased poverty and hardship, and higher debt—all in service to tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable business interests—is the wrong direction for our nation," Parrott added. "It is also directly at odds with the recent election in which so many people expressed concern about their ability to afford food, housing, healthcare, and other necessities—and at odds with the promises made to them by President Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular