Winning just nine more House seats than Democrats in the 2022 midterms means the Republican caucus has very little room for error.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Enhanced health care tax credits expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts. Learn who benefits, what’s at risk, and how premiums could rise without them.
Getty Images, yavdat
Just the Facts: What Happens If Enhanced Health Care Tax Credits End in 2025
Oct 03, 2025
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
There’s been a lot in the news lately about healthcare costs going up on Dec. 31 unless congress acts. What are the details?
The enhanced health care premium tax credits (ePTCs) are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts to extend them.
What is the breakdown of what they are and who benefits?
Premium tax credits are subsidies created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to help people afford health insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces. They reduce the monthly premium cost based on your income and household size.
- Original ACA credits: Available to people earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level.
- Enhanced credits (ePTCs): Introduced in 2021 via the American Rescue Plan and extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act. These:
- Made coverage free or nearly free for those under 150% of the poverty level.
- Removed the 400% income cap, allowing middle-income earners (e.g., up to $128,600 for a family of four) to qualify.
- Capped premiums at 8.5% of household income for higher earners.
Who gets these credits?
- Low-income individuals and families: Those earning between 100%–150% of the federal poverty level often pay $0 for benchmark plans.
- Middle-income earners: Previously excluded, now eligible if they earn above 400% of the poverty level.
- Self-employed and small business owners: Especially benefit if they don’t have access to employer-sponsored coverage.
What happens if they expire?
- Premiums could double for many enrollees in 2026.
- Millions may drop coverage due to affordability issues.
- Insurers are already planning rate hikes, anticipating a drop in healthy enrollees and a rise in average claims costs.
What is the impact depending on income level?
- Income $14,580–$21,870 (100%–150% FPL) – Current Premium: $0 – New Premium if Credits Expire: $387/year
- Income $21,870–$29,160 (150%–200% FPL) – Current Premium: ~$160/year – New Premium if Credits Expire: $905/year
- Income $29,160–$36,450 (200%–250% FPL) – Current Premium: ~$1,033/year – New Premium if Credits Expire: $2,615/year
- Income $36,450–$58,320 (250%–400% FPL) – Current Premium: Capped at ~8.5% of income – New Premium if Credits Expire: $1,400/year (varies by state)
- Income above $58,320 (>400% FPL) – Current Premium: ~$2,900/year (with credits) – New Premium if Credits Expire: Full cost of benchmark plan (often $3,000+ increase)
What are the arguments by Republicans for allowing the credits to expire?
- COVID-era spending should sunset: Many Republicans argue that the enhanced credits were part of emergency pandemic relief and should not be made permanent without broader reform. As Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA) put it, “It is time to end all COVID-related incentives,” though she also acknowledged the need to protect families from sudden cost increases.
- Opposition to expanding Obamacare: The enhanced credits were created and extended through Democratic legislation (American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act), which Republicans opposed. Some view extending these subsidies as entrenching a policy they’ve long sought to repeal or reform.
- Need for structural reform: Fiscal conservatives argue that the ACA subsidies distort the insurance market and should be revisited holistically. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “I think in all likelihood, they need to be reformed. But this is an overreach to try to do this on a permanent basis.”
What are Democrats’ arguments on why it is wrong to allow the credits to expire?
- Coverage Loss and Rising Uninsured Rates: Democrats warn that millions of Americans would lose coverage or face unaffordable premiums. The expiration would disproportionately affect working families, older adults, and communities of color. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) called it “a recipe for disaster for families who are already stretched thin.”
- Middle-Class Protection: The enhanced credits removed the income cap, helping middle-income earners afford coverage for the first time. Democrats argue that reversing this would punish people who earn just above the poverty threshold but still struggle with high premiums.
- Moral and Equity Imperative: Many Democrats see health care as a right, not a privilege. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “We should be expanding access to health care, not ripping it away from millions of Americans.”
- Political Accountability: Democrats argue that Republicans are playing politics with people’s lives by refusing to extend the credits. They point out that the credits were popular and effective, and letting them expire would be a deliberate choice to increase hardship.
- Cost of Inaction: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that premiums could double for some enrollees. Democrats argue that the fiscal cost of increased uninsured rates and emergency care far outweighs the cost of maintaining the credits.
What is the impact on the deficit if the credits are allowed to continue?
The CBO has estimated an increase of $350 billion to the deficit. There are possible offsetting factors that are not included in the deficit score, such as lower uncompensated care costs for hospitals, improved public health outcomes, and increased labor market participation due to coverage stability, but there is no way of determining the extent of any savings.
Have Democrats offered any suggestions to address the deficit issues?
Democrats and health policy allies are offering suggestions to offset the projected $350 billion cost of permanently extending the enhanced ACA premium tax credits, though formal negotiations remain politically stalled. Some of the proposals are:
- Targeted Eligibility Limits: Scale back eligibility from the current uncapped income threshold to a ceiling like 600% of the federal poverty level (about $200,000 for a family of four).
- Progressive Phase-Out Model: Extend full subsidies only up to 300% of poverty, then gradually phase out assistance for higher incomes.
- Smaller Alternative Subsidy Formula: Set new subsidies halfway between the original ACA formula and the enhanced version.
- Health System Reforms as Offsets: Democrats and budget experts have floated ideas like prescription drug pricing reforms, site-neutral payment policies, Medicare Advantage payment adjustments, and reducing waste and fraud in ACA enrollment systems.
David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Rep. Angie Craig’s No Social Media at School Act would ban TikTok, Instagram & Snapchat during K-12 school hours. See what’s in the bill.
Getty Images, Daniel de la Hoz
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Social Media at School Act
Oct 03, 2025
Gen Z’s worst nightmare: TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat couldn’t be used during school hours.
What the bill does
Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN2) introduced the No Social Media at School Act, which would require social media companies to use “geofencing” to block access to their products on K-12 school grounds during school hours.
The bill carves out exceptions for push notification of weather alerts, Amber alerts for missing children, and emergency responders.
The specification of “school hours” means social media couldn’t even be used in the cafeteria at lunch or in the hallways between classes. However, it could still be used on school campuses after hours. For example, posting photos and videos at night from football games on the gridiron, or from school talent shows in the auditorium.
The bill also carves out multiple examples of websites or apps that don’t qualify as social media and wouldn’t be subject to a ban. These include: email, Wikipedia, e-commerce like Amazon and eBay, videoconferencing like Zoom, and (perhaps controversially) gaming.
Context
In 2023, Florida became the first state to restrict cell phones in schools statewide. Just in the two years since then, a groundswell of 34 states across the political spectrum have passed policies either restricting or banning cell phones in schools.
In summer 2025 alone, similar policies were enacted by blue state Oregon, swing state North Carolina, and red state Ohio.
As education policies are generally set at the municipal and state level, no member of Congress appears to have introduced legislation banning or restricting cell phones in schools nationwide.
The closest might be the Focus on Learning Act, bipartisan legislation encouraging school districts to adopt phone-free classrooms by establishing a federal grant program to pay for lockable pouches and magnetized containers. The legislation has not yet received a vote.
But even if enacted, it wouldn’t directly change public policy, just nudge it through incentives. This bill, though, would directly change public policy. While it still wouldn’t ban cell phones themselves in schools, banning social media would certainly curb the main thing teens do on their cell phones.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that social media is distracting tens of millions of children from both education and face-to-face interactions with peers.
“We all know how negatively social media is impacting our students’ mental health, attention span, and ability to focus—especially at school,” Rep. Craig said in a press release. “Schools should be places for learning and socializing, not scrolling.”
“While Minnesota's teachers and administrators work hard to create a safe and engaging environment for our students, we have to hold Big Tech accountable for how their platforms are impacting our kids,” Rep. Craig continued. “My bill requiring tech companies to block access to social media during school hours is a start.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the answer is to use social media in schools in a curtailed and responsible way, rather than banning it entirely. They say that when done right, social media could actually help education.
For example, Matt Evans at the University of San Diego wrote an article titled “Social Media in Education: 13 Ideas for the Classroom.”
Odds of passage
The bill awaits a potential vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
It has not yet attracted any cosponsors, from either party—despite the increasingly bipartisan consensus on banning or restricting cell phones in classrooms at the state and municipal levels.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on The Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Banning Trump Administration From Renaming Naval Ship Harvey Milk
Congress Bill Spotlight: Making Trump Assassination Attempt a July 13 National Holiday
Keep ReadingShow less
John Adams warned that without virtue, republics collapse. Today, billionaire spending and unchecked wealth test whether America can place the common good above private gain.
John Adams Warned Us: A Republic Without Virtue Cannot Survive
Oct 03, 2025
John Adams understood a truth that feels even sharper today: a republic cannot endure without virtue. Writing to Mercy Otis Warren in April 1776, he warned that “public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without [private virtue], and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” For Adams, liberty would not be preserved by clever constitutions alone. It depended on citizens who could restrain their selfish impulses for the sake of the common good.
That insight has lost none of its force. Some people do restrain themselves. They accumulate enough to live well and then turn to service, family, or community. Others never stop. Given the chance, they gather wealth and power without limit. Left unchecked, selfishness concentrates material and social resources in the hands of a few, leaving many behind and eroding the sense of shared citizenship on which democracy depends.
Adams distinguished between subjects and citizens. Subjects were ruled. Citizens participated. But citizenship required more than casting a vote. It demanded habits that sustain a free society: honesty, moderation, service, and fairness. A republic cannot rest on the hope that enough citizens will voluntarily restrain themselves. History shows that when virtue fails, only clear rules—laws that promote fairness and institutions that protect the public good—can prevent private power from overwhelming democracy itself. Without these guardrails, inequality grows unchecked, cynicism deepens, and democracy itself becomes vulnerable to collapse.
That lesson feels urgent in an age when material success is celebrated as the highest good. Wealth today buys more than comfort—it buys political influence and cultural authority. Since Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, billionaire political spending has exploded. In 2024, just 100 families spent $2.6 billion on elections—more than millions of small donors combined. Pharmaceutical companies spend millions to block reforms that would make medicine affordable. Tech companies lobby against rules designed to keep markets fair. Defense contractors protect massive budgets, even for weapons the military no longer wants. The pattern is the same: when selfishness is unconstrained, private wealth bends public institutions toward private ends.
Adams foresaw this danger. In his 1776 letter to Warren, he warned that “the spirit of commerce…is incompatible with that purity of heart, and greatness of soul which is necessary for a happy Republic.” He did not reject commerce. He saw its energy as essential. But he feared what happens when wealth becomes the only measure of worth and when no boundary—internal or external—checks its pursuit.
The problem, then, is not wealth itself. It is selfishness without limits. Private virtue can restrain it, but when virtue fails, public rules must step in. A healthy republic cannot depend on individual moderation alone. It needs laws that channel economic energy toward the common good: rules that protect fair competition, transparency that exposes corruption, and institutions that reward service over greed.
As I explored in “American Whiplash: A Republic in Cycles”, the United States has repeatedly gone through periods of excess followed by correction. The Progressive Era curbed monopolies. The New Deal built protections in the midst of a crisis. The Civil Rights Movement expanded freedom by forcing the nation to honor its promise of equality. In each case, selfishness was constrained by citizens insisting on fairness and leaders willing to act.
The question now is whether we still have the will to repeat that work. A republic cannot survive if selfishness is allowed to rule unchecked. Adams’s warning was plain: liberty itself will wither when wealth is prized over character. Some may grow very rich, but few will remain free. The true test of the republic is whether it can summon both private virtue and public courage to place the common good above private gain.
Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and writes the Stability Brief.
Keep ReadingShow less
Do not take talking for granted, writes YOUnify's Pedro Silva.
filadendron/Getty Images
Gen Z Students Find Common Ground in Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’
Oct 03, 2025
As a college student, I used to think that I could not talk openly about American politics with my peers. Polling indicates that many others on campus feel the same way. Discussing my political beliefs often felt either too divisive or too exhausting. Even when free speech rights are guaranteed to some extent, the idea of publicly expressing opinions can be intimidating due to the harsh scrutiny it can attract. A simple cost-benefit analysis suggested that it was not worth it to engage with my peers about politics.
I learned, however, that it is still possible to have productive conversations about politics when I joined a reading group on Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. The group of students around the seminar table each came from different majors, backgrounds, and viewpoints to read and discuss this timeless book — and it helped me realize that, despite our political divisions, Americans can still come together in conversation about politics.
Before this experience, I did not think we could talk about what it means to be Americans anymore. Divisive conversations about the deeply conflicting visions for America among different people have been loud for all of the political coming-of-age years of my generation, Gen Z. Meanwhile, conversations about what we share—history, rights, freedom—and the principles of the American Founding that might help us move forward have been quiet.
However, I was then invited by a professor at my university to participate in a reading group supported by the Jack Miller Center, and I accepted. Each week, we gathered around a table in a small seminar-style classroom, passing pastries around, to read Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.
As I reflect on it in retrospect, what stands out to me is the diversity among the group of people who sat around this table. And while there was racial and ethnic diversity, these are not the primary types of diversity that stand out to me. There was another kind of diversity: viewpoint diversity, which has become increasingly prevalent on college campuses.
I recall, at the time, feeling a sense of shock at who was in the room. I lean conservative in my political views, and I was not surprised to see other people whom I suspected or knew to also be conservative-leaning. It would seem to follow, after all, that there is something inherently conservative about taking time to conserve the study of the past. I was surprised, however, to see people in the room that I suspected or knew to be liberal-leaning.
Among this group, one of my peers was elected as a delegate to the 2024 Democratic National Convention. Across the table from her was someone else who went on to work for the Family Research Council, a right-of-center think tank committed to “advancing faith, family, and freedom.” Most of us had divergent views, but we were not divided. Even as interpretations and opinions on Democracy in America varied, we were united in the pursuit of understanding and wisdom. This reading group demonstrated to me that the study of primary sources, which teaches us about the American identity and fosters conversation, is not a practice that pigeonholes us into a single viewpoint or partisan camp. It is a practice that can transcend the superficial divisions of our political life and invite us to consider the first principles of being Americans.
I have some wonderful memories from throughout my life that are centered around bonfires. Conversations with friends, celebrations, and moments when someone got out a guitar and broke out into song all come to mind. While the bonfire was beautiful and served a practical purpose in its own right, the most valuable feature of the bonfire was its ability to bring people together around it, in conversation with each other. This is what reading Tocqueville’s Democracy in America did for me and my peers in this campus reading group. It gave us something to gather around and prompted discussions we would not have otherwise had.
While strikingly relevant, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America—like any good primary source document—is not so entrenched in our present-day issues to prevent us from zooming out and thinking about greater things. By discussing this book together, we explored what America is supposed to be, what it is, and what we might prefer it to be.
Culture has taught Gen Z to be politically active and fight for a better society. Yet, no one ever taught us how to actually do those things productively. I do not believe that my generation wants to be divided or always fighting to prove our vision for America is the better one. I think that we have just lacked a framework through which we can enter into productive conversations about ideas. Gathering to read and discuss a primary source gave us this framework.
It seems more apparent than ever that we are deeply divided as a country. If this bothers you, I encourage you to learn from my experience and consider reading a primary source from the American founding or American history with fellow Americans—those who share your views and those who do not. This practice might just be our path forward.
Lillie Inman is a senior at Samford University and a communications intern for the Jack Miller Center.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More