Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less