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

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

USA Election Collage With The State Map Of Utah.

Getty Images

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

On Wednesday, February 11, the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) asked a federal court to join a newly filed lawsuit to protect Utah’s new, fair congressional map and defend our system of checks and balances.

The NRF is a non‑profit foundation whose mission is to dismantle unfair electoral maps and create a redistricting system grounded in democratic values. By helping to create more just and representative electoral districts across the country, the organization aims to restore the public’s faith in a true representative democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Voter registration in Wisconsin

Michael Newman

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Imagine there was a way to discourage states from passing photo voter ID laws, restricting early voting, purging voter registration rolls, or otherwise suppressing voter turnout. What if any state that did so risked losing seats in the House of Representatives?

Surprisingly, this is not merely an idle fantasy of voting rights activists, but an actual plan envisioned in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 – but never enforced.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less