Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The GOP’s Budget Gamble: Slashing Safety Nets to Fund Tax Cuts for the Wealthy—Will the Voters Notice?

Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

In February, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a Republican budget resolution, delivering a key victory for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and President Donald Trump—but at what cost? The 217-215 vote advanced a plan that calls for $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade while extending and expanding the first Trump tax cuts to the tune of $4 trillion to $4.5 trillion. The contrast is stark: sweeping reductions in government programs that help middle- and low-income families, with Medicaid, SNAP, Pell Grants, and Social Security on the chopping block, to finance permanent tax breaks that disproportionately benefit corporations and high-income earners.

The GOP is betting that voters will reward them for cutting taxes and trimming government spending. But because economic insecurity remains high and healthcare costs continue to rise, slashing safety nets like Medicaid could prove politically toxic—especially among working-class and elderly voters in red states who rely on these programs.


The numbers paint a dismal picture. The GOP budget proposes a 20% reduction in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which over 42 million Americans depend on to combat starvation. The proposed Medicaid cuts are even more severe. Over 90 million Americans, including 37.6 million children, are enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Slashing these funds would leave millions of Americans with reduced access to healthcare. Representative Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) returned to the House floor for her first vote since giving birth, bringing her newborn along as a statement against the proposal. “These cuts will devastate families,” she warned.

Under attack is not just healthcare and nutrition programs. The GOP also aims to scale back Pell Grants, a vital program that helps low-income students afford college. Reducing these grants will disproportionately affect students who rely on them to break the cycle of poverty and access higher education. Meanwhile, Social Security changes in the House proposal would force many Americans to work longer for less, impacting approximately 257 million people, or three in four Americans.

Why target these programs? The answer lies in the $4 trillion to $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that the budget aims to retain and extend. These cuts overwhelmingly benefit corporations and high-income households, widening the economic divide. Even some Republicans have voiced concerns. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the lone GOP defector in the House vote, bluntly stated that the plan “will increase budget deficits” because the tax breaks and new spending exceed the proposed cuts by trillions.

Republican leaders counter that their tax plan will generate enough economic growth to offset the deficit. However, this trickle-down promise has repeatedly failed in the past, most notably with the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which ballooned the deficit while delivering limited economic benefits to middle- and lower-income Americans. If Republicans were serious about balancing tax cuts with spending reductions, they could have taken a different approach—one that did not disproportionately harm the poor and working class while protecting corporate and wealthy interests.

Instead of slashing Medicaid, food assistance, and Pell Grants, Congress could have targeted wasteful spending, corporate handouts, and tax breaks for the super-rich. Closing corporate tax loopholes and eliminating the carried interest loophole could generate $1.8 trillion over a decade while ending fossil fuel subsidies would free up another $200 billion. A 5% reduction in the Pentagon’s $880 billion budget—targeting wasteful projects like the $ 1.7 trillion F-35 program —could offset cuts to social programs. Adjusting Medicare and Social Security benefits for the wealthiest retirees would save $400 billion, ensuring middle- and lower-income seniors remain protected.

Additional reforms could further ease fiscal strain while protecting the vulnerable. Eliminating corporate farm subsidies ($25 billion annually) and consolidating redundant federal programs identified by the GAO ($200 billion in savings) could shrink the deficit without harming essential services. Strengthening Medicare and Medicaid fraud detection could recover $100 billion annually while selling 77,000+ unused federal properties could save $1.7 billion per year. These targeted cuts and efficiency measures would help reduce the deficit without forcing low-income families, seniors, and students to bear the brunt of the burden.

Even with the House GOP’s victory, the fight is far from over. The budget plan now heads to the Senate, where Republicans favor even deeper tax cuts but are also expressing unease over the House’s proposed cuts to Medicaid and other social programs. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already signaled that substantial revisions will be necessary, making it unlikely the House version will pass without major changes. Some Senate Republicans are pushing to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent, which would further increase the cost of the plan, but they remain wary of slashing vital social safety nets to pay for them. The Senate’s skepticism underscores the GOP's deepening divide over balancing tax cuts with fiscal responsibility.

With the 2026 midterms looming, the GOP’s budget plan poses a massive gamble. While Republican leaders hope voters will focus on tax cuts, gouging deep holes in programs like Medicaid and SNAP could alienate key constituencies, including low-income families, the elderly, and working-class voters in battleground states. If history is any guide, prioritizing tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the most vulnerable is not just bad policy—it’s bad politics.

The House GOP’s budget resolution represents a significant inflection point in American politics. By proposing deep cuts to essential programs to fund tax breaks for the wealthy, Republicans are making a clear statement about their priorities. But it raises the most important question: Will voters accept these trade-offs, or will the backlash prove too great?

Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.

Read More

The $2 Billion a Day Problem of Polarization
A person holding a stack of dollar bills that are flying away.
Getty Images, PM Images

The $2 Billion a Day Problem of Polarization

What do a sausage maker and an insurance giant have in common? A growing concern about the divisions fracturing American society — and a willingness to do something about it.

At Johnsonville, recent research with The Harris Poll found that 82% of Americans agree there’s too much outrage in the country and wish we could “turn down the temperature.” The company’s “Keep It Juicy” campaign, voiced by actor Vince Vaughn, encourages Americans to reclaim everyday joy and civility. Meanwhile, Allstate, one of the nation’s largest insurers, has launched a three-year initiative with the Aspen Institute to strengthen trust in communities. Their message is clear: “Strong communities, businesses, and relationships are built on trust.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments
File:Flooding of the Guadalupe River near Kerrville, Texas in 2025 ...

Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments

The deadly Texas floods have receded, leaving lost and shattered lives. Donald Trump tells us not to politicize the moment, with spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt calling the floods “an act of God,” meaning no one is responsible. However, because the floods and the climate disasters that follow them make the costs heart-wrenchingly visible, they give us the chance to discuss root causes and the choices we face. If we don’t have these conversations, these teachable moments will quickly fade.

Democratic pushback has focused primarily on cutbacks to the National Weather Service and FEMA, leaving critical offices understaffed and undermining the ability to plan effectively. But the pushback has focused less on climate change, even as, the day before the floods, the Republicans paid for massive tax breaks for the wealthiest in part by slashing federal support for wind, solar, battery, and electric vehicles, energy efficiency, and other investments that gave us a chance to join China and Europe in leading the technologies of the future. So we need to discuss the choices presented to us by this tragedy — and all the others that will come.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defend Democracy Against Bombardments on the Elections Front –A Three-Part Series
low angle photography of beige building

Defend Democracy Against Bombardments on the Elections Front –A Three-Part Series

In Part One of this three-part series, Pat Merloe explored the impact of the political environment, the need for constitutional defense against power-grabbing, and the malign effects of proof of citizenship on voting.

In Part Two, Merloe explored the harmful effects of Executive Orders, the reversal of the Justice Department on voting rights, and the effects of political retribution.

Part Three: Attacks on the Courts, and the Need to Defend Universal and Equal Suffrage

As noted in Parts One and Two of this series, multipoint attacks against trustworthy elections are underway with just 16 months until 2026’s voting and less time before off-year elections this November. Awareness of the attacks – and those fortifying trustworthy processes – is crucial for defending democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans rally for Ukraine
People draped in an American flag and a Ukrainian flag join a march toward the United Nations.
Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

How a ‘Bad’ Ceasefire Deal With Russia Could Jeopardize Ukraine, American Interests

WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration resumes sending weapons to Ukraine and continues urging a ceasefire with Russia, international actors have voiced warnings against a deal that could leave Ukraine vulnerable, jeopardize nearby countries, and threaten American interests.

President Donald Trump has vowed to end the war, but a United States-brokered deal would need to balance Ukraine's independence and European security, experts have said.

Keep ReadingShow less