Sen. Josh Hawley is a deeply conservative and decidedly ambitious Republican from Missouri who hopes to run for president. In an extraordinary essay for The New York Times, he broke sharply from Donald Trump and his allies on Capitol Hill who are promoting a huge budget bill that would slash popular safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps to finance trillions of dollars in tax cuts.
“The nub of the conflict: Will Republicans be a majority party of working people or a permanent minority speaking only for the C-suite?” wrote Hawley.
He denounced the “corporatist” or “Wall Street” wing of his own party, arguing that they want “to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.”
That bill is still working its way through Congress, and it could face many revisions before it becomes law, but the GOP’s basic approach is pretty clear: penalizing the most vulnerable Americans while pampering the wealthiest. Hawley is certainly correct that this formula is “morally wrong,” but that’s hardly a surprise. What is startling is the political risk Trump and his toadies are taking.
The “working people” who once aligned with the Democratic Party have been shifting rightward for many years — Ronald Reagan made major inroads with that group — but Trump has greatly elevated his party’s appeal to less-advantaged voters.
In exit polls last fall, 68 percent described the economy as “poor” or “not so good,” and Trump thrashed Kamala Harris with this group 70 to 28. The 59 percent who earn less than $100,000 a year backed Trump 51 to 47. Among voters who lack a college degree — 57 percent of the electorate — Trump led 56 to 43.
Democrats have so far mounted a feeble and futile opposition to Trump, but his budget bill gives them a flicker of hope. “Democrats are preparing to use the vote as a cudgel against vulnerable GOP members in midterms next year,” the Washington Post reports.
Hawley sounds a similar warning: “Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs.”
Historically, Republicans like Reagan could happily campaign against “welfare queens,” demonizing them as greedy and ungrateful “others” who slurped up taxpayer dollars and voted Democratic. But as the election returns demonstrate, the Republican base has shifted dramatically, and Hawley can now argue that “our voters depend on those programs.”
For both Medicaid and food stamps, now known as SNAP, the Republican strategy is simple: Tighten eligibility standards — mainly by imposing stricter work requirements — and save money by driving millions of beneficiaries out of these programs.
SNAP serves 42 million Americans, with an average monthly benefit of $212. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the cuts now in the Republican bill could jeopardize at least some benefits for 11 million of those current recipients.
“Slashing billions from SNAP would deepen hunger, increase poverty, and weaken communities,” Crystal FitzSimons of the Food Research & Action Center, an advocacy group, told the Times.
But it’s not just food stamp recipients who would suffer under the Republican bill. Farmers and processors, truckers and grocers would also feel the impact.
“SNAP is not just food assistance for families — it’s an economic engine that bolsters jobs on Main Street,” said Stephanie Johnson, vice president of the National Grocers Association. “SNAP dollars circulate directly through local businesses, helping to pay local wages, keep shelves stocked and support essential services in communities nationwide.”
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least 8.6 million Americans would lose Medicaid benefits under the current Republican bill, but some analysts say as many as 13 million could eventually be affected. Like food stamps, Medicaid payments circulate through communities and benefit many ancillary businesses.
The Commonwealth Fund and George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health studied the combined impact of cuts to both safety net programs. “Medicaid and SNAP programs are not just designed to strengthen individual health and nutrition — they support the economic well-being of communities and businesses nationwide,” said Leighton Ku, a professor of health policy and management at George Washington. “Cuts of this magnitude will not be harmless. In fact, such drastic reductions would harm millions of families and also trigger widespread economic instability and major job losses.”
Among those who could lose their jobs: Republican lawmakers who ignore Hawley’s warning that their “big, beautiful bill” is both “morally wrong and politically suicidal.”
Steven Roberts teaches politics and journalism at George Washington University. He can be contacted by email at stevecokie@gmail.com.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( From the desk of… Morally wrong and politically suicidal )
Also on site :