Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

News

Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

Republican and Democratic representatives discussed the fiscal state of the United State in a House Budget hearing on May 7, 2025

Huiyan Li | Medill News Service

WASHINGTON –– Republicans and Democrats clashed on May 7 at a House Budget Committee hearing over how to address the nation’s mounting federal debt—whether to raise revenue through tax increases or cut spending on federal programs such as Medicaid.

Both parties agreed that the United States was on an unsustainable fiscal path and that urgent action is needed to prevent a debt crisis.


U.S. national debt will soon exceed $30 trillion, with annual deficits approaching $2 trillion; interest payments on the debt now surpass the entire defense budget, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office.

“These figures represent a growing economic burden that threatens long-term prosperity,” said Joshua Rauh, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, in his testimony.

Republican representatives argued that the debt burden was driven by the “unchecked” growth of mandatory spending programs, particularly Medicaid. They blamed the expansion of Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act for adding pressure to the federal budget.

The Act allows states to extend Medicaid coverage to adults with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level (about $20,780 annually for an individual or $35,630 for a family of three). Currently, 40 states and Washington, D.C. have adopted the expansion.

“Are we not, through Medicaid, currently subsidizing the able-bodied massively more than the vulnerable, for whom Medicaid was actually designed to serve?” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said.

“If you’re illegal, you should not get a check from the federal government. If you don’t work and you are healthy, you should not get a check from the federal government,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.).

Michael Linden, senior policy fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, opposed this idea, arguing that 80 million Americans rely on Medicaid, which covers most long-term care and nearly half of all births in the United States.

While Rep. Norman said, “It is not a cut. It’s just rearranging an inequity,” a Congressional Budget Office analysis released May 7 showed that several Republican proposals to slash Medicaid would lead to millions of people losing health insurance coverage.

“There is a reason why 80% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, oppose cuts to Medicaid,” said Linden.

While Linden acknowledged that the program could be more efficient, he said he has not seen any proposals from the Republicans that would reinvest the money saved from cuts back into the program to benefit people.

“Instead, those cuts are going to pay for tax cuts for billionaires,” said Linden.

Democrat representatives attributed the mounting debt crisis not to excess spending but instead to tax cuts, saying they benefited only the wealthy.

“The sweeping, indiscriminate tariffs that have raised prices on Americans, the slashing of critical programs from health care to education—why? All so that we can set up a $7 trillion tax break for the wealthiest in America,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.)

A recent U.S. Treasury Department analysis found that Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act gave the top 1% of households an average tax cut of $60,300, compared with $660 for the middle 20% of households by wealth.

Rauh from Hoover Institution argued that raising tax rates discouraged work, savings, and investments, leading to lower growth and fewer new businesses and jobs, which would ultimately reduce revenues.

“Our research shows that when governments impose high tax burdens, you get lower than expected revenue growth,” said Rauh, supporting the tax cuts.

Linden disagreed with that theory. Quoting research from the Yale Department of Economics, he said at the hearing that corporations receiving the tax cut did not raise wages for their workers—but they did raise wages for their executives.

“Growth and prosperity come from everyday Americans going about their lives—creating jobs, being customers, being productive members of society—and they need basic things like health care and food and housing,” said Linden. “Not through a hope that the tax cuts for a giant multinational corporation will eventually trickle down to them.”

Huiyan Li is a reporter for Medill News Service covering business & technology. She is a journalism graduate student at Northwestern University specializing in politics, policy, and foreign affairs.


Read More

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

Russell Vought, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in July.

Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

In mid-July testimony before Congress, Russell Vought boasted that, as the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he’d refashioned the agency’s approach to pursuing banks and other financial companies accused of exploiting Americans — the role Congress had created for the agency after the 2008 economic crash.

Vought had spent the first 18 months of the new Trump administration trying to dismantle the bureau, much as he and other appointees had done with the U.S. Agency for International Development. At CFPB, he’d ordered mass layoffs, tried to choke off the bureau’s funding and ended the lease on its headquarters, attempting to make good on his vow to put civil servants “in trauma.” But federal courts blocked Vought’s efforts to close the CFPB, with a judge at one point saying the administration had acted with “complete disregard” for Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
A man walks with a ship behind him

man walks near the Punta Cardon refinery, on Jan. 23, 2026. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world with an estimated 303 billion barrels.

(Jesus Vargas/dpa via ZUMA Press/TNS)

Americans should be concerned about the fine print on Trump’s new oil deal

So, it was a war for oil after all.

On social media Friday, President Trump announced that the United States and Venezuela have struck an agreement for “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth

Teal shoes are displayed outside Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in April 2018 as part of Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kris R. Lindstrom/U.S. Navy

Military Sexual Trauma Survivors Can’t Sue the Government. A New Bill Could Change That.

When Mayra Diaz opened the door of her Army barracks room in 2022, she didn’t realize it was the beginning of the end of her military career.

She had never met the soldier standing in front of her, Sgt. Greville Clarke. She didn’t know he had sexually assaulted three other women on base over the past 15 months, including one he threatened at knifepoint.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG

Horizontal photo of a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG with a stylized DONKEY with 3 white stars on blue top of donkey and two red feet. Flag is laying on top of a red, white, and blue American Flag.

Getty Images

How to Define the Democratic Party - Left or Centrist?

Labels can be misleading and misused. The label "Centrist" is empowering because it signifies you are mainstream, not extreme, a place where all people can come together. To be labeled "Left" is to place you outside the mainstream, extreme; left connotes a kind of kookiness as well as—horror of horrors—Socialism.

But are the labels accurate? For most of the 20th century, the Democratic Party was, without question, the party that championed the working man, the average person—the people. But they were nevertheless firm capitalists—they were not Socialists.

Keep ReadingShow less