Democrats release competing funding bill as tensions over looming shutdown grow #Trumpdictator #medicaid #USrecession #RichgetRicher
The Democratic bill would fund the government until Oct. 31, extend health care funding and roll back Medicaid cuts from Trump's "big, beaut
WASHINGTON â House and Senate Democratic leaders released a competing bill Wednesday that reflects their vision for how to fund the government on a short-term basis, drawing a marked contrast with the Republican proposal as a potential shutdown nears.
The Democratic legislation would permanently extend Obamacare subsidies that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, as well as reverse Medicaid cuts enacted in President Donald Trumpâs âbig, beautiful bill.â It would lift the freeze on foreign aid funding that the White House is withholding through âpocket rescissionsâ and restore funding for public broadcasting.
It would keep the government funded through Oct. 31.
The release of the 68-page Democratic bill is sure to escalate tensions between the two parties just a couple of weeks before a Sept. 30 deadline to avert a government shutdown.
Republicans are advancing their own proposal to keep the government funded through Nov. 21, which would maintain current spending levels with limited add-ons. That legislation was not negotiated with Democrats before GOP leaders released it Tuesday, and it would largely continue the status quo for the time being.
Democrats had insisted that they would vote against a bill that didnât address their priorities. But they donât control either chamber of Congress or the White House. Still, several Democrats will be needed to pass any government funding bill through the Senate, where 60 votes are required and Republicans control only 53 seats.
âAmericans deserve better than more of the same failed Republican agenda," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "For weeks, Democrats have been ready to sit down and hammer out an agreement, but Republicans are following Donald Trumpâs orders not to even deal with Democrats instead of doing their jobs. Democrats are fighting to protect healthcare, lower costs, and keep the government open â because thatâs what hardworking people expect and deserve.â
Schumer has said for weeks that Democrats wouldnât accept a bill without a negotiation â unlike in March, when he and other Democratic senators voted to pass a Republican-only funding bill to keep the government afloat. The latest GOP bill, he said earlier Wednesday, âhad no input from Democrats.â
Meanwhile, the GOP measure is on track for a House vote by Friday. It is unclear that it has the votes to pass even in the narrow Republican majority, with some conservative lawmakers opposed or skeptical. It needs only a simple majority. But even if it passes, at least seven Senate Democrats would need to support it to break a filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said earlier that negotiations are taking place among appropriations leaders in both parties on longer-term spending and that the House GOP bill would simply buy more time for a broader agreement.
He slammed Democrats for their resistance to the stopgap bill.
âDo they actually think that hardworking Americans are going to thank them for shutting down the government?â Thune said Wednesday on the floor. âItâs particularly hard to understand Democratsâ determination to shut down the government when weâre simply asking for a few more weeks to complete bipartisan â bipartisan â appropriations work.â
Republicans are using the same strategy that worked for them in March, when they passed a six-month government funding bill that was written without Democrats. At the time, they dared Democrats to vote it down, and at the eleventh hour, Senate Democrats blinked.
This time, Democratic leaders say they're determined to achieve a different outcome.
Attempts to rebrand the âBig Beautiful Billâ wonât fool West Virginians #biguglybill #bigbeautifulbill #Trumpdictator
The âBig Beautiful Billâ takes away health care and food assistance and raises costs â while handing tax cuts to the wealthy.
If you scroll through social media or watch the news, youâll see our members of Congress and special interest groups practically begging West Virginians to believe that the so-called âBig Beautiful Billâ (HR 1) is good for us. But West Virginians know a bad deal when we see one. This legislation takes away health care and food assistance and raises costs for nearly all of us â while handing giant tax cuts to the wealthy. And with West Virginia among the states slated to be hardest hit by program cuts, itâs our communities who will pay the price.
The tax cut spin doesnât hold up
Our members of Congress claim the bill delivers tax cuts for West Virginia families. But their claims do not hold up for everyday West Virginians. Most of the so-called ânewâ cuts they claim in their figures are already in place. More importantly, the dollar figures they cite are misleading â skewed by massive tax breaks for millionaires.
Here in West Virginia, the bottom 40% of households are expected to see their taxes increase compared with what they pay now, while the median household will get a tax cut less than half the size of the âaverageâ touted by bill supporters. Meanwhile, the wealthiest households will reap the biggest benefits, with 80 percent going to the wealthiest 10 percent of households. Once you factor in tariffs and other provisions, independent experts project that by 2027, 99 percent of households nationwide will actually be worse off financially.
Cuts to health care and food assistance hit West Virginians hard
The real story of the bill isnât tax cuts â itâs what those cuts cost. To pay for giveaways to the wealthy, Congress enacted the deepest cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in our nationâs history. In our state, that means more than 50,000 West Virginians will lose their health coverage and 33,000 risk losing food assistance. That includes seniors, veterans, parents and people who worked their whole lives but hit hard times.
And those cuts will have rippling effects on all of us, whether we directly rely on the programs or not. Rather than increasing the workforce by âgetting people to workâ as promised, West Virginia is expected to see a loss of 6,000 jobs resulting from deep reductions in federal funds that currently go to health care providers, hospitals and grocers. Experts say both wages and GDP will fall as a result of the legislation, while the national debt will rise by trillions of dollars.
Hospitals that serve a significant Medicaid population will see reduced payments and higher uncompensated care (bills that go unpaid). Combined, this is expected to result in layoffs, reductions in health care services, higher prices for private insurance, and even hospital closures. Just this month, a medical group in Virginia announced the closure of three health care clinics in response to âthe One Big Beautiful Bill and the resulting realities for healthcare delivery.â
Rising costs and hungry families
And while our members of Congress have promised that we have years to prepare, health care providers are making hard choices now, and some of the provisions will be felt right away. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced this month that states are expected to start implementing new SNAP restrictions now. This will result in parents, veterans and older retired West Virginians up to 64 years old losing critical food assistance. Increases in hunger will drive more people to food pantries that are already stretched thin with need and the high cost of groceries. In January, state lawmakers will have to grapple with finding money in the state budget to cover the federal SNAP and Medicaid costs Congress forced onto the states.
Add in the tariffs baked into this bill, and everyday costs will keep climbing â from groceries to household goods â while paychecks donât stretch as far. No one feels that squeeze more than working families here at home.
West Virginians deserve better
Supporters of HR 1 want to frame this debate as simply about tax cuts. Thatâs because when you zoom out, the picture is devastating: The wealthy get ahead while West Virginia families lose health care, food assistance and jobs, and see costs rise. Polling shows most Americans already believe this law benefits the rich at the expense of the rest of us â and theyâre right.
While the fallout is already beginning, it is not too late to change course. Congress can reverse the most harmful provisions of HR 1 and put forward a real plan to lower costs, strengthen health care, and invest in communities. Thatâs what West Virginians need â not another round of broken promises and handouts to those at the very top.
Trump's big, ugly tax legislation will scar many Americans #biguglybill #bigbeautifulbill #Trumpdictator #medicaid #USrecession
By all objective measures, it will create significant, long-term harm for millions of low- and middle-income Americans â as well as seniors
The âOne Big Beautiful Bill Actâ President Donald Trump and Congress just foisted on America will be âto the great detriment of the people of this country.â Those arenât my words, nor are they Democratic Party hyperbole. Theyâre the sentiments of Marc Racicot, the former Republican governor of the very red state of Montana. Racicot voiced this criticism just before the legislation passed, in a vain effort to sway members of his party to kill the bill.
Unfortunately, Racicotâs caution fell on deaf ears, because most congressional Republicans fear the political consequences of incurring Trumpâs wrath more than they care about the people theyâre supposed to serve. So they passed the bill into law. This legislation is so iniquitous that by all objective measures, it will create significant, long-term harm for millions of low- and middle-income Americans â as well as seniors â just to line the pockets of the wealthiest.
Hereâs why:
Making the temporary tax cuts enacted back in 2017 under Trump permanent is the centerpiece of the bill. But that comes at the cost of losing $3.8 trillion in revenue over the next decade. Other tax cuts in the legislation cost another $441 billion, bringing the total 10-year price tag for the tax cuts up to $4.2 trillion. And unless youâre one of Trumpâs megarich cronies, those cuts arenât benefiting you.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, by 2029 the bill actually increases taxes on workers making $30,000 a year or less, while bestowing an annual tax cut of $309,000 on the richest 0.1%. For perspective, that tax cut is nearly four times greater than the $80,610 median annual income in America.
And no, these supply side tax cuts for rich folks wonât stimulate the economy. In fact, after analyzing every supply side tax cut implemented in all 18 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development nations (including the U.S.) from 1965-2015, the London School of Economics found that tax cuts for the rich donât enhance âreal GDP growth or unemployment rates.â
They will, however, worsen income inequality. After adjusting for inflation, IRS data shows the average incomes of the top 1% jumped by 125% between 1979 and 2020, from $818,660 to $1.84 million per year. Over that same time frame, the average annual income for the bottom 99% â i.e. everyone else â went from $65,577 to $73,286, for an increase of just 12%. In that environment, transferring wealth from folks at the bottom and middle of the income ladder to the top is immoral.
Worse, to pay in part for ginormous tax cuts targeted to the Mar-a-Lago crowd, the bill slashes spending on programs that help less fortunate Americans do crazy stuff, like receive medical care and put food on the table. For instance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps poor families buy nutritious food, gets cut by $186 billion over 10 years.
Then thereâs Medicaid, the nationâs largest insurer, which provides health care coverage to some 71.3 million people, or roughly 20% of all Americans. Over the next decade, the budget office estimates Medicaid gets cut by some $1 trillion under the bill. This will cause anywhere from 10.3 million to 17 million folks to lose health coverage, the vast majority of whom work.
And despite Trumpâs protestations to the contrary, Medicare, the federal health insurance program that primarily covers people 65 and older, will also get whacked because of the bill. See, under a process dubbed âsequestration,â the federal pay-as-you-go statute requires any growth in the deficit caused by newly enacted legislation like Trumpâs bill, be automatically offset by spending cuts. While some programs are exempt from sequestration, Medicare isnât. The budget office projects sequestration will cause $536 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade, which means Trump was either ignorant of the law or lying.
Then thereâs the harm the bill will wreak on the state government budgets, like Illinoisâ General Fund. Over 94% of all General Fund spending on services goes to education, health care, human services and public safety. Unfortunately, the General Fund has a structural deficit, which means annual revenue growth is inadequate to continue funding the same level of those core services from year to year, even when the economy is growing.
Because Illinoisâ income tax is based on federal law, when the feds cut taxes, so does Illinois. As the billâs tax cuts filter down to Illinois, theyâll worsen the structural deficit by $923 million over the next 10 years. But thatâs just the tip of the iceberg. Combined with the Medicaid and SNAP cuts, the billâs potential impact on the General Fund is a 10-year financial hit that exceeds $50 billion. Which means Illinois either has to raise taxes or slash spending on core services like K-12 education, because Trump decided to feather the nests of his bajillionaire cronies.
The ugly truth about Big Beautiful Bill: It's the true waste, fraud and abuse | Opinion #biguglybill #bigbeautifulbill #Trumpdictator #medicaid #USrecession
This Big Beautiful Bill Act is a grotesque economic and social train wreck happening in front of our very eyes.
Right now, there are over 102 million people age 12 and older (35%) in the U.S. who are afflicted with addiction, mild-to-severe mental disorders or both, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Equaling the population of 19 states west of the Mississippi River, there likely isnât a family you know who hasnât been affected by these equal opportunity afflictions.
For the past 12 years, I have been placing those stricken with a mental health and/or addiction crisis into the treatment facility that best fits their situation. For far too many, the prohibitive cost or the lack of adequate health insurance prevented them from getting that treatment. Obamacare changed all that. Finally, families with an income at or below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level ($44,367 for a family of four) could receive the treatment via Medicaid expansion and government-backed premium subsidies for those up to 400% of the FPL.
Witnessing an adult weeping over finally having health insurance is sobering. Obamacare is NOT a socialized medicine giveaway, per right-wing scare tactics. It is a subsidy to purchase PRIVATE health insurance. The government already subsidizes health insurance for the commercial sector via tax deductions. We donât hear any complaints about that being socialized medicine. Subsidized health insurance is an economic stimulant.
After years of their incessant efforts to bury it, the Republicans finally get their revenge with the presidentâs âBig Beautiful Bill,â which they claim strengthens Medicaid and Obamacare by ridding it of fraud, waste and abuse. The human damage this bill creates: a shorter open enrollment window to get insurance; the reduction of subsidies that will result in higher premiums (up to 64.4% per the Kaiser Family Foundation), putting them out of reach for millions of consumers; fewer insurance plan options; the end of automatic annual renewal for those presently enrolled; and the cut in navigators who help consumers shop for the right policy.
These are but a few of the barriers intentionally erected by the Republican majority in Congress to frustrate the public in applying for insurance in the first place. The 10-12 million people estimated by the CBO who will lose their health insurance by 2034 will swell our emergency rooms, create an unprecedented surge in rural and urban hospitalsâ uncompensated care costs (which we eventually pay for through the annual increase of our insurance premiums) â leading to their closure, and the resulting reduction of economic growth for that economic zone.
And letâs not forget familiesâ increase in medical debt, bankruptcies and crashing credit scores due to the unaffordable ER visits they will be billed for health issues too serious to put off any longer.
As for Oklahoma, out of the 1 million Oklahomans enrolled in SoonerCare, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 373,000 (38%) Oklahomans will lose their Medicaid coverage through the administrative and work requirements alone.
The latest Republican mantra to so many Oklahomans who are about to lose their health insurance is âget a job to get insurance.â According to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, low and moderate income people are less likely to have employer-based health coverage. That's understandable, considering businesses with less than 50 workers are not obligated to offer health insurance to their employees, thus 47% of small businesses (3 to 399 workers) do not offer it at all. Those businesses rely upon the ACA for their employeesâ insurance! Get a job to get insurance? Good luck with that.
And if youâre one of the 164 million people who have health insurance through your employer, per the Commonwealth Fund, 23% of adults with an employer-sponsored policy are underinsured. That means they have health insurance, but due to their share of ever-increasing premiums, high deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, they canât afford to use it. Thatâs not conjecture, I witness every day those with insurance saddled with a $7,500-up-to-$9,200 out-of-pocket maximum, thus rendering their insurance policy virtually useless in getting treatment.
Study after study proves that every dollar spent on addiction and mental health treatment results in a minimum $4 dollar net gain. Funny thing about treatment, a now healthy citizen in recovery gets a job and contributes to the economy. The Republican refusal to see treatment as an economic stimulant is beyond stupefying.
All this misery in exchange for the "Big Beautiful Tax Cut" that benefits the wealthiest of our country at the expense of the rest of us, including up to $20 trillion added to our national debt. This Big Beautiful Bill Act is a grotesque economic and social train wreck happening in front of our very eyes. That is the true waste, fraud and abuse.
McDonaldâs CEO says Trumpâs no tax on tips amplifies an âuneven playing fieldâ for its restaurants, which donât get âcustomers to payâ for labor #biguglybill #bigbeautifulbill #Trumpdictator #medicaid #USrecession
Chris Kempczinski raised concerns that restaurants paying tipped workers a lower minimum wage were getting an extra boost from the White Hou
McDonaldâs employees will not only get no benefits from President Donald Trumpâs no tax on tips efforts, but the policy also exposes inequities between businesses that decide to pay workers the federal minimum wage versus those who pay employees a smaller wage supplemented by tips, according to CEO Chris Kempczinski.
The fast food boss told CNBCâs Squawk Box on Tuesday that while he supports the no tax on tips policy, it doesnât do any favors for McDonaldâs restaurant workers.
âThe issue with no tax on tips is it only benefited those restaurants that have tips,â Kempczinski said. âWe donât do tipping in McDonaldâs, and so we donât get the benefit of, essentially, that tax relief there.â
Trump included no tax on tips as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill he signed into law in July. The legislation allows for an up to $25,000 federal income tax deduction from reported tips. Fast food and counter workersâas well as bartender helpers, chefs and cooks, dishwashers, and other food workersâare eligible for the tax deduction, according to a White House social media post on Tuesday.
While some have touted no tax on tips as a way to save workers up to thousands of dollars in federal income taxes annually, others have raised concerns about who is actually able to benefit from the policy. The Yale Budget Lab found 37% of workers earning tips had incomes low enough to exempt them from paying federal income tax in 2022, meaning the tax deduction would not even be relevant.
âUneven playing fieldâ for restaurants
According to Kempczinski, the policy has other negative consequences for restaurant workers. For restaurants allowing workers to earn tips, the minimum-wage requirement is $2.13, a level set in 1991. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 was set in 2009.
By offering a reward for certain tipped workers, no tax on tips provides an outsize advantage to businesses paying workers less with the expectation the employees will make the majority of their wages in tips, Karla Dennis, a tax strategist, previously told Fortune.
âIt is a win for the business owner,â Dennis said. âThey may have more of their employees wanting to work the jobs that earn tips, and it may also help to get more people in these service-oriented jobs.â
Kempczinski said the policy therefore gives an additional edge to companies with tipped wage policies, which McDonaldâs does not have.
âRight now, thereâs an uneven playing field,â he said. âIf you are a restaurant that allows tips or has tips as part of your equation, youâre essentially getting the customer to pay for your labor, and youâre getting an extra benefit from no taxes on tips.â
Potential solutions in setting minimum wages
In order to mitigate this disparity, Kempczinski suggested setting one minimum wage for both tipped and non-tipped employees. He also said the company was âopen to conversations on raising the federal minimum wage.â McDonaldâs raised its minimum wage in 2021 by about 10% as a result of a pandemic-era labor shortage, with hourly entry-level workers earning between $11 to $17 per hour and managers earning between $15 and $20.
Eight states currently have equal wages for tipped and non-tipped workers. In states where tipped wages are $2.13 per hour, the poverty rate for waitstaff and bartenders hovers around 18.5%, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-of-center think tank, citing U.S. Census data. For states with one minimum wage, the poverty rate is about 11.1%. For non-tipped workers, poverty levels are similar, regardless if a state has a tipped minimum wage. A 2014 report from Cornell Universityâs School of Industrial and Labor Relations found having one minimum wage for tipped and non-tipped workers also lowered turnover rates and increased employee morale.
âThereâs already been a model that shows that the tipped wages can be the same as the federal minimum wage,â Kempczinski said. âWe just need to do that, I think, across all 50 states.â
Augusta Health closes three clinics, citing One Big Beautiful Bill Act #biguglybill #bigbeautifulbill #Trumpdictator #medicaid #USrecession
Augusta Medical Group is closing an urgent care clinic and two primary care clinics in response to the massive reconciliation bill Congress
Augusta Medical Group is closing an urgent care clinic and two primary care clinics in response to the massive reconciliation bill Congress passed this summer. The move will force Shenandoah Valley residents to travel further for their primary and emergency health care needs.
Dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the federal legislation entails forthcoming changes to Medicaid thatâs projected to lead to enrollment drop offs and big tweaks to hospital funding mechanisms.
First reported by WHSV3, and according to a press release from Augusta Medical Group, Augusta Medical Groupâs decision is part of the âongoing responseâ to the OBBA and âthe resulting realities for healthcare delivery.â
Affected facilities are Buena Vista Primary Care, Churchville Primary Care and Weyers Cave Urgent Care.
Buena Vista patients have already been contacted and reassigned to either Augusta Health Maury River Family Practice or Augusta Primary Care in Lexington, each about 10 miles away.
Churchville patients are encouraged to go to Augusta Health Family Practice in Verona, also about 10 miles away. The release noted that it is open five days a week, while the Churchville facility had previously operated three days per week.
Weyers Cave patients will need to travel further to access other Augusta Health urgent care locations in Stuarts Draft, Staunton, Waynesboro, or Crozet. Meanwhile, the company plans to deploy its mobile clinic to Weyerâs Cave to meet people where they are, but itâs unclear how frequently that would happen as of the time of this publication.
About 21% of 6th Congressional District residents are on Medicaid, according to the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services. The 6th District includes much of Shenandoah Valley and is represented in Congress by Republican Rep. Ben Cline, who voted in favor of the OBBA this summer.
Most Republicans â including all of Virginiaâs Republican congressional delegation â supported the President Donald Trump-backed bill, though some took issue with the health care portions of it. U.S. Reps. Rob Wittman, R-Westmoreland, and Jen Kiggans, R-Virginia Beach, had urged Congress to reconsider those portions of the bill, before ultimately voting for it anyway. All of Virginiaâs Democratic delegation opposed the bill.
Last week, U.S. Sen Mark Warner urged health systems to âbe transparentâ about any struggles they encounter amid the fallout of the legislation, much like Augusta Health has done.
Augusta Health serves about 200,000 people in Shenandoah Valley to include Augusta County, Staunton, Waynesboro and surrounding areas across hospitals and clinics including the ones that are closing. The company is the largest local private employer in the area. According to its website, it employs over 2,000 people and has over 200 physicians. Itâs unclear how many staff and medical professionals have been let go amid the closure of the three clinics.
The Mercuryâs call to Augusta Health to ask about lay offs and the mobile clinic was directed to a line that wasnât answered and an inbox that was not accepting new voicemail.
Kris Doan, president of Augusta Medical Group relayed in the press release that âthese decisions are never easy, but demonstrate Augusta Healthâs commitment to deploying innovative access strategies for addressing demand at the neighborhood level.â
He added that the choice was ânecessaryâ to ensure the future of Augusta Healthâs footprint in the region as a health care provider.
âWe remain focused on meeting the evolving needs of the Shenandoah Valley while keeping our patients at the center of everything we do,â he said.
FEMA suspends employees who signed letter blasting Trump-era changes to agency, sources say #RichgetRicher
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has suspended more than 20 employees who signed an open letter criticizing the agency, multiple sour
The Federal Emergency Management Agency on Tuesday suspended more than 20 employees who signed an open letter arguing the Trump administration had undone years of post-Hurricane Katrina progress at the disaster relief agency, multiple sources told CBS News.
Monday's open letter to Congress â known as the "Katrina Declaration" â said it was signed by 191 current and former FEMA employees. Some 35 attached their names, while the rest said they withheld them over fear of retaliation.
Some of the current FEMA employees who used their names received emails on Tuesday night saying they had been placed on paid administrative leave "effective immediately, and continuing until further notice," according to copies of the emails reviewed by CBS News.
"While on administrative leave, you will be in a non-duty status while continuing to receive pay and benefits," the letter read. The staffers were told not to visit FEMA facilities, access the department's telecommunication systems or carry out any of their official duties, aside from responding to inquiries from the Department of Homeland Security.
The agency also told staff that they must remain available to work during business hours.
The emails did not provide a reason for the decision. Staffers were told the move "is not a disciplinary action and is not intended to be punitive."
In a statement, FEMA called the signatories "the same bureaucrats who presided over decades of inefficiency" and accused them of having "forgotten that their duty is to the American people not entrenched bureaucracy."
"Our obligation is to survivors, not to protecting broken systems," FEMA continued. "Under the leadership of Secretary Noem, FEMA will return to its mission of assisting Americans at their most vulnerable."
The Washington Post was first to report on the suspensions.
The "Katrina Declaration" was published as the United States marks the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, which was one of the deadliest and costliest natural disasters in U.S. history. The 2005 hurricane prompted major changes to the nation's disaster relief system â and Monday's letter argued many of those reforms could be reversed by the Trump administration.
The letter accuses President Trump of picking unqualified people to lead FEMA, and criticizes the administration for cutting the agency's workforce and terminating grants meant to help state and local governments harden their infrastructure to mitigate the impact of natural disasters.
The declaration said it hopes changes are made in time to "prevent not only another national catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina, but the effective dissolution of FEMA itself and the abandonment of the American people such an event would represent."
The Trump administration has pushed for sweeping changes to FEMA. Earlier this year, Mr. Trump suggested either "getting rid of FEMA" or "fundamentally reforming" the agency by pushing some of its duties to state governments. So far this year, the agency has lost roughly one-third of its staff through a combination of firings and voluntary departures.
FEMA acting press secretary Daniel Llargues responded to the letter Monday by defending the Trump administration's record of handling natural disasters and arguing FEMA was previously "bogged down by red tape, inefficiency, and outdated processes."
"The Trump Administration has made accountability and reform a priority so that taxpayer dollars actually reach the people and communities they are meant to help," Llargues said. "It is not surprising that some of the same bureaucrats who presided over decades of inefficiency are now objecting to reform. Change is always hard. It is especially for those invested in the status quo. But our obligation is to survivors, not to protecting broken systems."
Trump family crypto empire expands with Crypto.com partnership #presidentialcorruption
President Donald Trumpâs crypto ventures are expanding with plans for a digital asset treasury company
President Donald Trumpâs personal crypto ventures are expanding again, this time with plans for a digital asset treasury company that holds an alternative cryptocurrency.
Trump Media and Technology Group, which operates the Truth Social media platform, announced Tuesday that it was partnering with the cryptocurrency exchange Crypto.com to form a company that holds CRO, a token created by Crypto.com. A blank check company tied to Yorkville Advisors is another co-founder of the new firm, called Trump Media CRO Strategy.
Trump Media said it plans to purchase $105 million worth of CRO. Yorkville said the total expected funding for the company's treasury will be $1 billion worth of CRO, or about 19% of the token's market cap, plus $420 million in cash and equivalents and as a $5 billion line of credit.
The announcement is part of the hottest trend in crypto, in which a wide variety of companies â many with no obvious ties to the world of digital assets â have made buying and holding cryptocurrency a primary part of their business plan. The model is based on MicroStrategy, a tech firm that first started buying bitcoin in 2020 and has seen its stock price soar.
âCompanies of all sizes and sectors are strategically planning for the future by establishing digital asset treasuries anchored by assets that have created a comprehensive value proposition and are poised for even greater utility,â Devin Nunes, the chairman and CEO of Trump Media, said in a statement.
Trump Media said it plans to introduce a ârewards systemâ on Truth Social that uses Crypto.com digital wallet infrastructure. CRO saw its price jump Tuesday morning by about 30% to 21 cents a token. Itâs still far off from its all-time high of nearly 97 cents a token that it hit in 2021.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has pushed for crypto-friendly regulations and laws, while the Trump family has aggressively sought to expand its crypto-related businesses.
That unprecedented dynamic has led to allegations of corruption from Democrats, though the president says he has entrusted the management of his business dealings to his sons.
In May, Trump rewarded top investors in his meme coin with a swanky dinner. Trump launched the coin just days before taking office. Fans of the president have also been able to buy crypto-themed Trump merchandise, including $100,000 watches and pricey sneakers.
Trump Media previously announced plans to hold a significant amount of bitcoin on its books as well as to create an exchange-traded fund tied to the prices of five popular cryptocurrencies.
World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency company launched by Trump and his sons last year, has received significant boosts from an investment fund in the United Arab Emirates and Justin Sun, a China-born crypto entrepreneur. The Securities and Exchange Commission has paused a lawsuit it filed against Sun in 2023 alleging his company engaged in market manipulation and paid celebrities for undisclosed promotions.
A little-known firm called ALT5 Sigma recently announced it was planning to raise $1.5 billion to buy the digital coins created by World Liberty Financial and that Eric Trump, the presidentâs son, is joining the company's board.
Also on Tuesday, a firm called Canary Capital filed paperwork with the SEC seeking to sell an exchange-traded fund that will track the price of the president's meme coin.
For-Profit Presidency: New Yorker Mag Reveals Trump Familyâs Frenzy to Cash In on the White House #presidentialcorruption
âHow much is Trump pocketing off the presidency?â Thatâs the question driving a major new investigation by journalist David D. Kirkpatrick i
âHow much is Trump pocketing off the presidency?â Thatâs the question driving a major new investigation by journalist David D. Kirkpatrick in The New Yorker, which finds that the first family has been leveraging its place atop U.S. politics to rake in billions. According to Kirkpatrick, Donald Trump and his immediate family have made $3.4 billion from his time in the White House, including more than $2.3 billion from various cryptocurrency ventures alone.
âWhat really surprised me about all this is just how fast theyâre making this money. They seem to turn down no opportunity,â says Kirkpatrick. âIt really sharpens the question of what a buyer, so to speak, might be getting for that.â
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Iâm Amy Goodman, with Juan GonzĂĄlez.
âThe Number: How Much Is Trump Pocketing Off the Presidency?â Thatâs the headline of an exhaustive new investigation published by The New Yorker magazine. In the piece, journalist David Kirkpatrick writes, quote, âMany payments now flowing to Trump, his wife, and his children and their spouses would be unimaginable without his Presidencies: a two-billion-dollar investment from a fund controlled by the Saudi crown prince; a luxury jet from the Emir of Qatar; profits from at least five different ventures peddling crypto; fees from an exclusive club stocked with Cabinet officials and named Executive Branch.â
In March, Forbes estimated that Trumpâs net worth had more than doubled over a year to $5 billion. And a few months later, The New York Times estimated Trumpâs wealth had grown to $10 billion. But these estimates and others did not attempt to look at how exactly his fortune is growing.
David Kirkpatrick writes, quote, âAlthough the notion that Trump is making colossal sums off the Presidency has become commonplace, nobody could tell me how much heâs made. ⊠I decided to attempt to tally up just how much Trump and his immediate family have pocketed off his time in the White House,â unquote.
Well, David Kirkpatrick joins us now in our New York studio.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Itâs great to have you with us. Explain how you arrived at the number. And what are the â is the period of time that he has made this money?
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: Well, whatâs important here is that Iâm trying to be fair to the president. Iâm not out to get Trump here. I went through and looked at all the sources of income, the income streams flowing into the Trump Organization, the president and his family, and I asked: Is this money that he would have made absent the presidency? Because heâs got hotels, heâs got golf courses. Sometimes people go there just to play golf or rent a hotel room. Weâre not talking about that. So, I only wanted to look at money that he has made because he is or has been in the White House. And then I tried to ask, as best I could: What is each one of those things worth? And thatâs how I came up with $3.4 billion. And again, I think what I hope will make this report credible, and the reason I urge people to read it, is that itâs â Iâve tried as best I can to be fair. Iâve shown all my work. And people can make their own conclusions.
JUAN GONZĂLEZ: And, David, could you talk about some of the specifics, from the small to the big, for instance, the ubiquitous MAGA hat at Trump rallies? How is â Trump has a private store that sells these? Can you talk about that, and also the familyâs investments in crypto?
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: Yeah, the hats. I was quite surprised to realize that in addition to the campaign merchandise sold by his campaign, which all candidates and all presidents do â thatâs money that goes into the campaign coffers, that he canât really touch for personal purposes â the Trump Organization also has its own online store, and they sell all kinds of Trump merchandise that looks very much like its campaign merchandise, but this money flows to Trump and himself â you know, $20, $40 for a pair of flip-flops, a pair of beer koozies, a baseball hat. Heâs making, you know, millions of dollars â you know, I forget what the exact number was, but 20 millions of dollars over the last few years â selling this kind of merchandise, which is arguably competing with his own campaign and diverting some of the money that his supporters might think is supporting the MAGA movement and his candidates to his own pocket. Thatâs the â you know, thatâs the small end. Nobody thinks that anybody whoâs paying $50 for a baseball hat is actually going to get any influence, you know, over the president in return for that. Thatâs just a way of making money.
On the other extreme, thereâs significant amounts of money flowing into the Trump Organization now through its various or the presidentâs various crypto enterprises. Some of these, you know, predate his return to the White House, but I tried to look here at the â you know, all the money that they made off of the White House over the course of the two terms and the time in between, when he remained a kind of kingmaker in the Republican Party, so â and most of it has happened during around his second term, you know, shortly before, through his second term. In terms of crypto, you know, should I go through and break down all the ways theyâre making money off of crypto?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: OK, well, here you go. So, first of all, for people who might not be familiar with crypto, all it is, really, is a kind of online ledger or spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what. Thereâs a number of ways the Trump family has tried to take advantage of this new technology. He started out by selling NFTs, non-fungible tokens, which are basically sort of digital cartoons of himself.
Then he moved on to setting up a company. His family, his sons set up a company called World Liberty Financial. And thatâs done a couple things. It sold a kind of token or online certificate that would ostensibly allow somebody to vote on whatever its futures, plans in the crypto business might be. They raised, you know, $550 million selling those tokens, and 75% of that flows to the Trump Organization. Then it went into a new business, selling whatâs known as a stablecoin. A stablecoin is basically the online equivalent of a dollar. Itâs not really an investment. Itâs just a kind of, like, almost a checking account. Itâs a way to transfer money here and there, perhaps more efficiently by doing it digitally. For the company, World Liberty Financial, they get to make money off of investing that money in treasuries while itâs out in the world circulating as a stablecoin. So, they go into the stablecoin business. Their first customer is a company owned by the United Arab Emirates that puts up $2 billion to buy stablecoin. While that money is out circulating as stablecoin, theyâre going to get about 4% a year on that, I calculate, by investing it in short-term treasuries. So, thatâs a couple.
Thereâs a few others heâs gone into. His memecoin is perhaps the most famous. President Trump, right around the time he was elected, before he was inaugurated, went into this business selling a kind of online novelty, basically just a joke. Itâs a kind of digital certificate that just allows you to say, âI paid money to own a little Trump novelty.â Thatâs it. Thatâs all it is. Thereâs nothing to it. And it doesnât even purport to sort of hold wealth, although you can trade it back and forth. Heâs made about $300 million selling those memecoins.
And the last thing is a little bit of kind of a financial engineering that his company, Trump Media & Technology Group, a publicly traded company of which heâs the chairman â a little bit of financial engineering that that company has done. Now, that is the company that owns Truth Social. Truth Social is a very small online platform, social media platform. It doesnât have much revenue, maybe a million dollars a quarter. Itâs never really made a profit. It doesnât have much chance of ever making a profit. And yet, the stock that owns it, Trump Media & Technology Group, trades at a kind of surprisingly high price. People on Wall Street consider it a meme stock. It trades basically on how people feel about President Trump. And in the last couple months, really in June, that company has done a remarkable thing, which is they have sold â theyâve issued new shares of stock. Theyâve sold the stock at their inflated memecoin price, and theyâve taken that money, and theyâve bought bitcoin. Theyâve also done the same thing to try to stockpile some cash, but theyâve bought about $2.3 or $2.4 billion worth of bitcoin, and theyâve stockpiled about $760 million worth of cash. So, in the end of last quarter, they said, âLook, weâve got $3.1 billion of liquid assets on our books.â So, I calculate that since President Trump owns 42% of that company, he has an ownership interest in that $3.1 billion. So, as I was doing this reporting over the last few months there, my calculation of their net worth, of his net worth, bumped by â I shouldnât say âhis net worthâ â of the amount of money heâs made off the presidency, jumped up by a billion dollars.
JUAN GONZĂLEZ: Yeah, other members of the family, for instance, Jared Kushner and his daughter, in terms of the investments by foreign government sovereign funds in them, and what that looks like?
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: I think youâre thinking about Jared Kushnerâs private equity firm.
JUAN GONZĂLEZ: Yes.
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: So, after he left â after Trump left the White House in 2020, his son, Jared Kushner, who had been in real estate, went into private equity, a new line of work. And he went to the Persian Gulf to solicit money, and he asked the sovereign wealth fund of the United â of Saudi Arabia to invest. Their panel of advisers said, âThis is a mistake. He doesnât have a track record in private equity, only real estate. There could be some public relations problem here. People are going to say this is a payoff to the family of a president.â The crown prince of Saudi Arabia, who controls the public investment fund, overruled that and, nonetheless, invested the $2 billion with Jared Kushnerâs private equity firm.
Since then, heâs accumulated as much as $4.8 billion in assets under management, almost all of it from foreign sources, quite a bit of it also from the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Under standard private equity terms, he would get 2% a year of that money as asset management fees. With Saudi Arabia, itâs a little bit lower. But that is also, Iâm counting as, money flowing into the Trump family coffers as a result of their time in the White House.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you tell us, David, about the family? I mean, in the first term, many of them were advisers to President Trump. They were in the White House. They would have to deal with ethics rules. We donât see that right now. So, Iâm wondering how the family business has changed from the first term to the second term. And I also wanted to ask you about â for example, President Trump says he struck a trade agreement with Vietnam. Heâll apply a 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports, down from the 46% he threatened. The reported deal comes just weeks after the Trump Organization broke ground on a $1.5 billion golf course in Vietnam. A few questions there.
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: Yeah, a few questions there. So, during the first term, President Trump, on his way into office, volunteered that he and his family were not going to do any deals overseas, because they didnât like the way that looked. Right? It raises the specter that some foreign interest, or even foreign government, is going to try to buy favor with the U.S. government by paying Trump and his family privately.
During the second term, the family has said, âWeâre not going to do that anymore. Weâre no longer going to abstain from those deals.â Donald Trump Jr. has said publicly, âLook, we restrained ourselves last term, and people accused us of profiteering anyway. So weâre not going to lock ourselves in, quote-unquote, 'the proverbial padded room.' Weâre just going to go ahead and be businessmen and do as many deals as we can.â And theyâve done quite a few.
Now, again, in my accounting, Iâm not including deals which appear to be extensions of the business they were in before he was elected. You know, he had licensed his name for use on four condominium buildings around India before he ever went into the White House. Now there are five more Indian projects. Fine, letâs leave that aside. Thatâs, more or less, legitimate Trump business.
On the other hand, since late 2022, when he was really the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, heâs had a whole flurry of new deals around the Persian Gulf with one Saudi Arabian company, and thatâs in, you know, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, a couple in Saudi Arabia and one in Qatar. And I donât think thereâs any way those would have happened without the presidency. And that adds up to, I would say, you know, guessing as best I can the various income streams involved â thatâs more than $100 million right there in terms of its present value.
You mentioned the Vietnam project. Thatâs another one that I think, you know, would not have unfolded as it has, were he not returning to the White House. That is probably, you know, physically, going to be the largest Trump-branded property in the world. Its planned size is about three times as big as Central Park with 54 holes of golf. Itâs very hard to know how much the Trump family is actually going to make out of that property. On his most recent financial disclosure form, he said that the Trump Organization had already received $5 million in initial licensing fees from lending their name to that property. Heâs not going to build it. Heâs not going to own it. Theyâre just lending their name and some management services. So, I figure, over 10 years, which is kind of a minimum term for a management or licensing agreement, heâs likely to make at least $50 million, with a present value of about $40 million. Probably itâll be a lot more than that.
JUAN GONZĂLEZ: And how much of this, in your perspective, is legal or â and also, how much of it is unprecedented for a president?
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: As far as I can tell, itâs all legal. You know, I donât have any evidence of a quid pro quo. I donât have any evidence of a specific instance where he has explicitly sold a public favor for personal profit. And the remedy that our laws prescribe for potential conflicts of interest is disclosure. Elected officials disclose what they own and how theyâre making money, and the voters or the Congress can decide whatâs appropriate or inappropriate. And I guess weâll have to see how voters feel about that. The other part of your question, I think, was â what again?
JUAN GONZĂLEZ: How much of this is unprecedented for a president?
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: Oh, yeah. Well, a lot of â thatâs been widely reported. Thereâs nothing like this before, right? A lot of presidents make money after they leave, selling books, you know, various other endeavors. But he and his family are making this money while heâs in the White House. And the scale is really quite novel.
AMY GOODMAN: And in the last 10 seconds, you talk about the frenzy.
DAVID KIRKPATRICK: Well, thatâs right. What really surprised me about all this is just how fast theyâre making this money. They seem to turn down no opportunity. And thatâs what makes the questions about a conflict of interest all the more pressing, because I feel like when they are so evidently zealous, so eager to make money, it really sharpens the question of what a buyer, so to speak, might be getting for that.
AMY GOODMAN: David Kirkpatrick, we want to thank you so much for being with us, reporter with The New Yorker. Weâll link to your piece, âThe Number: How Much Is Trump Pocketing Off the Presidency?â
Coming up, immigrant detainees held at the so-called Alligator Alcatraz in Florida are stuck in a legal black hole. So says the ACLU, which has taken the Trump administration to court. Back in 20 seconds.
If you live in these states, Trump's tax law will cut health care funds the most #Trumpdictator
Nearly a quarter of all Americans' health insurance is covered by Medicaid. Here's how much Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" Act will cut from e
Democratic-leaning states will feel more of the impact of sweeping Medicaid cuts included in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," according to a new analysis by Oxford Economics.
The report, written by lead economist Barbara Denham, says that millions of Americans â regardless of where they live â will lose access to health insurance because of the tighter eligibility rules and new work requirements. Undocumented immigrants will be disproportionately affected, with many losing coverage under Medicaid, Medicare and the Childrenâs Health Insurance Program.
States such as California and New York â which have both expanded Medicaid and have large immigrant populations â are expected to be hit hardest. Other vulnerable states with large immigrant populations include Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington, D.C.
âFederal funding cuts and the expiration of the Marketplace subsidies will have several economic consequences,â Denham wrote. âThe number of newly uninsured will rise significantly, putting more at risk of worse long-term well-being, which will sap productivity growth.â
The new law limits federal matching funds for noncitizensâ medical care, shifting the financial burden to state governments and hospitals. That's particularly concerning for states with high percentages of foreign-born residents, many of whom rely on Medicaid.
The federal cuts to Medicaid funding come at a time when states are looking to trim their spending, too. KFF recently reported California has paused enrolling new undocumented immigrants in its health coverage program, while Illinois has stopped state-funded health benefits for all immigrant adults ages 42 to 64. States such as Idaho and Tennessee also enacted legislation limiting immigrant access to state health care benefits.
Since 2012, 40 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid under federal initiatives. But with the expiration of marketplace subsidies and new restrictions on immigrant coverage, a handful of states now face the steepest declines in federal health care funding.
Based on Oxford Economicsâ analysis of Congressional Budget Office and KFF data, more left-leaning states will lose more money per resident as the new law rolls out, but right-leaning Louisiana stands to lose the most ($5,855 per resident) of any state. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Wyoming â states that didn't expand their Medicaid benefits â will see some of the smallest cuts.
A Pew Research Center polls finds just 38 percent of respondents approve of President Trumpâs job performance compared to 41 percent two mon
A Pew Research Center polls finds just 38 percent of respondents approve of President Trumpâs job performance compared to 41 percent two months ago.
The worsening performance appears to be linked to disapproval of Trumpâs tariff policies, and to some opposition to the âBig Beautiful Billâ signed into law earlier this summer that extended Trumpâs first-term tax cuts, expanded those cuts, and also cut Medicaid.
Sixty-one percent of the 3,554 adults who were surveyed disapprove of Trumpâs tariff policies as prices rise on regular goods. The tax and spending law results are more mitigated: 46 percent disapprove of the legislation, 32 percent approve and 23 percent say they are unsure.
On other key issues, voters still have some confidence in Trump.
Forty-seven percent say they are âsomewhat confidentâ in Trumpâs ability to negotiate trade deals. On immigration, Trump also received a 46 percent confidence vote.
The administrationâs handling of files related to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein are an issue for the GOP and Trump.
Seven in 10 respondents agreed the case was mishandled. Among Republicans, 53 percent disapprove of the handling of the Epstein files, with 44 percent approving. Overall, 63 percent of respondents say they do not trust what the federal government is saying about the Epstein files
Other questions also shed some light on Trumpâs overall performance: 53 percent said Trump is making the federal government worse, while only 27 percent say he is making it better.
Democrats disapprove of Trump overwhelmingly more than Republicans, but both political parties are showing less satisfaction.
Fifty-five percent of Republicans said Trump was making the government better, and 16 percent said he was making it worse. Just after the inauguration, 76 percent of Republicans believed Trump would make the government better in the future.
With Democrats, 78 percent said Trump was making the government worse after the inauguration; that number is now up to 87 percent.
Since he took office, the presidentâs overall approval ratings have dropped 9 points, according to Pewâs numbers.
In February, 95 percent of Trump voters approved of his job performance, while it now stands at 85 percent. Among nonvoters, Trump has lost 13 percent of support.
US national debt soars past record $37 trillion â years sooner than expected #biguglybilltrump #bigbeautifulbill #Trumpdictator
Rapid run-up reflects emergency spending during the multi-year COVID-19 crisis, when the government borrowed heavily under Trump and Biden.
The US national debt has climbed past $37 trillion â a record sum that shows how quickly the federal governmentâs borrowing has accelerated and how rising interest costs are rippling through the economy.
The new figure appears in a Treasury Department report released Tuesday that tracks the governmentâs daily finances and shows the nation reaching the staggering threshold years sooner than previously expected.
In January 2020, the Congressional Budget Office projected that gross federal debt would not exceed $37 trillion until after fiscal 2030. Instead, the milestone arrived far earlier as deficits piled up faster than anticipated.
The soaring debt is forecast to be exacerbated in the coming years after President Trump signed into law his âBig Beautiful Bill,ââwhich extends and enhances many tax cuts that he initially codified back in 2017.
After Trump signed Republicansâ tax cut and spending package into law earlier this year, the CBO estimated the measure would increase the national debt by $4.1 trillion over the next decade.
A senior Trump administration official told The Post it anticipates the new legislation will spur economic growth that will offset the debt trajectory.
The official also pointed to remarks by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who said that government spending levels were âunsustainableâ and that the new tax cuts wonât increase the deficit.
Bessent has insisted that future growth and tariffs will offset the costs of tax cuts.
The rapid run-up reflects emergency spending during the multi-year COVID-19 crisis, when the government borrowed heavily under Trump and his successor, President Joe Biden, to prop up a shuttered economy.
âThe public debt outstanding grew 30% during the Biden administration and interest costs skyrocketed due to the inflationary policies of the last administration,â a senior administration official told The Post.
âToday, the deficit is already seeing benefits from President Trumpâs policies, most notably the first June surplus in years.â
The official added that monthly tariff revenue has more than tripled, from $7 billion late last year to about $25 billion in July and is on course to rise substantially in the coming months.
According to the official, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects that new tariffs introduced will generate an estimated $1.3 trillion of net new revenue through the end of the term and $2.8 trillion through 2034 before accounting for economic effects.
âIn short, inflation is easing, and new revenue is pouring into the US government,â the official said.
Nonetheless, the combination of prior pandemic borrowing and new legislation has intensified concerns about the pace of red ink and the governmentâs growing interest payments.
Fiscal watchdogs warn the trend is creating tangible costs. Michael Peterson, chair and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, told Fortune that government borrowing pushes interest rates higher, âadding costs for everyone and reducing private sector investment.â
âWithin the federal budget, the debt crowds out important priorities and creates a damaging cycle of more borrowing, more interest costs, and even more borrowing,â Peterson told Fortune.
He noted that trillion-dollar milestones are âpiling up at a rapid rate.â
The recent cadence is stark. Federal ledgers show the US hit $34 trillion in January last year, $35 trillion in July 2024 and $36 trillion in November 2024.
âWe are now adding a trillion more to the national debt every 5 months,â Peterson said.
âThatâs more than twice as fast as the average rate over the last 25 years.â
At the current average daily pace, the Joint Economic Committee estimates another $1 trillion could be added in roughly 173 days.
Economists say the borrowing path is largely set by legislative decisions on taxes and spending.
Wendy Edelberg, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said Congressâ latest actions mean deficits will remain elevated.
The Republicansâ tax law, she said, âmeans that weâre going to borrow a lot over the course of 2026, weâre going to borrow a lot over the course of 2027, and itâs just going to keep going.â
The Government Accountability Office has outlined how sustained federal borrowing can filter through to households and businesses.
As debt swells and interest rates reflect greater Treasury issuance, consumers can face higher costs to finance mortgages and car loans.
Businesses may invest less when capital is more expensive, a drag that can translate into slower wage growth. Prices for goods and services can also feel pressure from higher financing costs embedded in supply chains, the GAO notes.
Underlying forces have made the budget picture more challenging over time.
The federal government has run chronic annual deficits â when spending exceeds tax revenue â adding to the debt year after year.
Demographic trends intensify that mismatch: As the baby boom generation retires, spending on Social Security and Medicare rises steadily.
Health care costs, which have historically grown faster than general inflation, further swell outlays for Medicare, Medicaid and other programs.
On the other side of the ledger, tax revenues have not kept pace with these commitments, particularly following recent tax cuts and through economic cycles that depress receipts during downturns.
As debt compounds, interest payments consume a larger share of the budget, leaving less room for other priorities and creating a feedback loop in which more borrowing is required simply to service prior obligations.
Hundreds Applaud Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego as Democrats Launch Offensive Against Trumpâs Tax Legislation #deporttrump #Medicaid #SNAP
Hundreds of Democrats cheered Sen. Ruben Gallego in eastern Iowa as the Arizona Democrat criticized President Donald Trump's tax bill at a t
On Saturday, in eastern Iowa, hundreds of people enthusiastically cheered Sen. Ruben Gallego at a town hall meeting, as the first-term Arizona Democrat lambasted the sweeping, Republican-backed tax bill signed by President Donald Trump, warning it would likely leave âAmerica poorer and sicker.â
Gallego's uplifting event presented a stark contrast to Rep. Mike Flood's town hall earlier in the week, where an even larger crowd jeered the Nebraska Republican throughout most of the 90-minute session in his state, aimed at promoting the bill.
Democrats, who have been searching for a foothold to counter Trump's assertive stance in his second White House term since their election defeat last year, have intensified their offensive this month. They remain united in their frustration with Trump but are now galvanized, voicing full-throated opposition to his signature legislation.
âI believe this bill is helping Democrats see clearly whatâs at stake regarding the future protections for so many ordinary Americans,â said Pete Wernimont of Waterloo, who traveled 140 miles to attend Gallego's event. âI just hope they stand firm when it truly counts a year from now.â
While some Republicans in safe districts are braving crowds to champion Trumpâs law, most in Congress are following GOP leaders' advice to maintain a lower public profile, a notable strategy during the August recess that follows closely on Trumpâs signing of the tax cut and spending reduction bill last month.
Democratic activists are rallying to highlight what they perceive as the measureâs political vulnerabilities for Republicans striving to maintain their slim majorities in Congress during next yearâs midterm elections.
âThis is the galvanizing moment because Democrats now understand that we are the ones fighting for the middle class and the working class of America,â Gallego told reporters before Saturday's event. âThis is a clarifying moment for us.â
For two hours, an audience of around 300 people applauded and at times stood cheering for the Arizona Democrat, one of several party figures attacking the bill in congressional districts represented by Republicans. He was in Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeksâ 1st Congressional District, one of the most competitive in the nation over the past three congressional elections.
For a party frustrated by a range of Trump administration initiatives, the measure has had its own energizing effect.
âI came here because I work in health care, and this bill will harm health care,â said Alexandra Salter, a physician assistant from Davenport. âI think we are becoming more vocal about it because we need to speak up.â
The meeting sharply contrasted with Floodâs session in Lincoln, Nebraska, on Monday, where an even larger crowd of 700 voiced vigorous opposition to the bill, particularly focusing on its changes to Medicaid, the federally funded health care program for low-income Americans.
The bill, which passed without any Democratic votes in the House or Senate, makes substantial cuts to the health care program, notably by imposing work requirements for many recipients.
The same frustration that drew Wernimont to Davenport on Saturday convinced Ann Ashburn of Aurora, Nebraska, to drive 70 miles to Lincoln to confront Flood on Monday.
Ashburn learned about Floodâs appearance through an Omaha-area Democratic group called Blue Dot and reached out to friends who joined her. She dismissed any notion that such opposition had been orchestrated.
âI think the momentum could have been much greater had we been better organized,â the 72-year-old retired executive said.
For now, Republicans face an uphill battle if they hope to use the measure as a reason for voters to return them to the majority in the 2026 elections. About two-thirds of U.S. adults expect the new law will benefit the rich, according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Mostâabout 6 in 10âalso think it will do more harm than good for low-income people, according to the survey taken last year.
Gallego used his trip to Iowa, which included a mandatory stop at the Iowa State Fair, to enhance his own profile in a state that, until 2020, traditionally hosted the first event in the Democratsâ presidential nominating process. Iowa Democrats hope to reclaim the lead when the 2028 primaries and caucuses begin.
Other figures already popular nationally among Democrats, such as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have been making stops in Republican districts to decry the legislation. Ocasio-Cortez last month headlined an event in New Yorkâs 21st District, represented by Republican Elise Stefanik, highlighting among other items its Medicaid provisions.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is scheduled to hold rallies on Sunday in Republican-held House districts in North Carolina. He too plans to focus on Medicaid cuts and note their impact on rural hospitals in the state where former Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat now running for U.S. Senate, worked with the GOP-controlled legislature to expand Medicaid coverage in 2023.
Company advised by Trump sons initially claimed hope for federal funds, then retracted statement #BBBDeficit #trumpfamily
A public document filed by a company that just hired President Donald Trumpâs two oldest sons as advisers included a sentence early Monday t
Early Monday, a public document filed by a company that recently engaged President Donald Trumpâs two eldest sons as advisers contained a sentence indicating its aspiration to profit from grants and other incentives offered by the federal governmentâa government led by their father.
However, when The Associated Press inquired with the Trump family business about this apparent conflict of interest, the document was promptly revised, and the controversial line was removed.
According to the filing, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are set to receive âfounder sharesâ valued at millions of dollars in New America Acquisition 1 Corp. This company, currently without any operational business, aims to fill that void by acquiring an American company capable of playing âa significant role in revitalizing domestic manufacturing,â a goal that aligns with the presidentâs trade policy aimed at bolstering U.S. manufacturing.
The original securities filing stated that the target company should be âwell positionedâ to leverage federal or state government incentives. This reference was notably absent from the revised version.
The Trump Organization did not respond to questions regarding whether New America still intended to benefit from government programs or the rationale behind removing the line. However, Paul Hastings, the external law firm that assisted in preparing the document, sent an email to AP stating that the inclusion was a âmistakeâ made by âscriveners,â an archaic term for legal paper transcribers.
Kathleen Clark, an expert in government ethics, remarked that any excuses offered were too late, as the Trumps had already revealed their intentions.
âThey simply deleted the language. They havenât pledged not to pursue what they earlier stated they were planning to do,â said the Washington University law professor and Trump critic. âItâs an attempt to exploit public office for private gain.â
New America is a special purpose acquisition company, or SPACâa publicly traded entity established solely to utilize its funds to acquire another company and take the target public.
New America plans to raise capital by selling new stock on the New York Stock Exchange at 10 per share.This move could potentially best ow the two Trump sons with acombined paper wealth of 50 million on the first day of trading. The company aims to sell enough shares to raise $300 million, which it then intends to use to purchase a yet-to-be-identified manufacturer.
A press release issued by New America emphasized its focus on âAmerican values and priorities,â making no mention of its aim to secure government incentives.
The filing to New Americaâs potential new investors, submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, was explicit about its criteria for a target company. It stated, among other things, its desire for a company that can capitalize on âpublic policy tailwindsâ by benefiting from federal or state âgrants, tax credits, government contracts, or preferential procurement programs.â
Report: âBig, Beautiful Billâ Set to Carve $1.1 Billion Gap in Michiganâs Budget #bigbeautifulbill#Trumpdictator
The Citizens Research Council predicts âsevereâ budget challenges from lost taxes and an increased state spending on Medicaid and SNAP benef
LANSING â Michigan lawmakers may face the daunting task of slashing approximately $1.1 billion from the stateâs upcoming fiscal year budget, all thanks to the recently enacted âbig, beautiful bill,â according to a report unveiled on Tuesday.
President Donald Trump signed the bill into law this month, following a strictly party-line vote in the U.S. House. The legislation extends tax cuts that were on the verge of expiration, and several nonpartisan entitiesâincluding the Congressional Budget Office and the Michigan House Fiscal Agencyâforecast that it will adversely affect lower-income earners and families.
Now, the nonprofit Citizens Research Council of Michigan sounds the alarm in its report, stating that Michigan will be saddled with an additional 1.1 billionin Medicaidand SNAP food benefits costs by 2032 and will suffera 677 million loss in tax revenue next year due to alterations in federal income tax policies.
This report emerges as Michigan continues to grapple without a budget for the next fiscal year, having missed the July deadline. The anticipated budget hovers around $84 billion but is expected to contract further owing to a reduction in federal COVID-19 relief funds.
The new law will impose âan added budget challenge that will be particularly severe over the next few budget cycles,â according to Bob Schneider, the Research Councilâs senior research associate for state affairs and the reportâs lead author.
He forecasts that the stateâs budgetary hurdles âwill be particularly severeâ and implores lawmakers to âget to work on developing a budget plan that considers these new realities.â
In addition to the tax cuts, the Big Beautiful Bill ramps up military and immigration enforcement, necessitating cuts and shifts in cost-sharing arrangements with states.
Currently, the federal government foots the entire bill for SNAP program benefits in Michigan, which totaled over 3.2billioninthe2024fiscalyear.Inthe2023fiscalyear,benefitsaveragedabout188 worth of food per person, per month for households with elderly members.
However, the new spending bill mandates that states begin covering up to 15% of SNAP benefit costs starting in the 2028 fiscal year.
Half of all SNAP households include an elderly individual or someone with a disability, as per an April 2025 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Regarding Medicaid, the federal government covers 50% to 90% of expenditures for Michiganders, depending on their enrollment plan. Michiganâs Medicaid budget for fiscal year 2025 stood at nearly $28 billion, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.
Recent data from the nonprofit health policy outlet KFF, however, indicates that Michigan will confront a staggering $32 billion decrease in federal spending over the next decade under the bill, positioning it as one of the states hardest hit.
While the Democratic-led Michigan Senate has approved its version of the budget, the Republican-controlled state House has only advanced the K-12 schools and higher education budgets before adjourning for most of the summer.
Failure to broker an agreement by the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 will trigger a government shutdownâa scenario Michigan has previously endured during periods of divided government in both 2007 and 2009.
Lawmakers are next scheduled to reconvene on Aug. 12.
Neither House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, nor Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, responded to requests for comment.
Earlier this month, Hall lauded the Medicaid and SNAP rollbacks and expressed skepticism that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is âdoing all of the proper checksâ to âensure that only eligible people are receiving welfare programs.â
Given the anticipated funding shortfall, Schneider said he wouldnât be surprised if the state finds itself compelled to convene another Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference to address the situation.
âWe, instantly, are going to need to make some adjustments and recalibrate on whatever budget ends up getting enacted,â he told Bridge on Wednesday.
That amount would ultimately need to be smaller than the nearly $84 billion budget Whitmer proposed in February, he added, âand thatâs before we even talk about the road funding.â
Nonetheless, Rep. Ann Bollin, a Brighton Republican and chair of the House Appropriations Committee, remains optimistic that both a roads plan and a final budget deal can materialize this yearâpossibly without even needing a revenue estimating conference.
âWe are going to have to move forward with more aggressive cuts,â she said, âbut, at the same time, we have to be very mindful that we canât leave our most vulnerable out of the equation. We need to take care of them and we need to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse.â
Trumpâs Mega-Bill Threatens to Shut Down Your Local Grocery Store #biguglybilltrump #bitcointrump
Large chains like Walmart, Kroger, and Dollar General can absorb the cuts to SNAP. Itâs the small, independent grocers that depend heavily o
New York â
Since the 1970s, Wrightâs Market has been a cornerstone of Opelika, Alabama, a town of roughly 30,000 residents near Auburn University, with the supermarket relying on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for approximately one-third of its sales.
SNAP is a âvital part of our business,â said owner Jimmy Wright, who began working at the store at age 12 and purchased it nearly 30 years ago. âWe see incredibly hardworking individuals relying on this program to feed their families and pay rent.â
SNAP, previously known as food stamps, is the nationâs largest anti-hunger initiative, providing recipients an average of about $6.16 per day, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
However, President Trumpâs One Big Beautiful Bill Act proposes the most significant cuts to food stamps in the programâs 86-year history, endangering assistance for over 42 million people. The legislation also jeopardizes SNAPâs role as an economic lifeline for grocery stores and communities, especially in rural areas, grocers and economists warn.
SNAP serves as a âsignificant economic engine for our industry and the broader supply chain,â including farmers, manufacturers, and wholesalers, Wright noted.
In May, the progressive think tank Center for American Progress identified 27,000 retailersâprimarily in rural regions with high SNAP participationâmost likely to bear the brunt of these reductions.
While large chains like Walmart, Kroger, and Dollar General can weather the storm, small, independent grocers that heavily depend on SNAP to maintain slim profit margins will suffer the most, according to food industry experts.
These independent stores are often the sole full-service supermarkets in rural and low-income neighborhoods. SNAP cuts, coupled with changes to Medicaid, are expected to disproportionately affect vulnerable Americans whom the GOP has pledged to protect.
At Wrightâs Market, SNAP beneficiaries form a dependable customer base that influences business strategies. For instance, the store tailors its food selection and pricing to accommodate low-income shoppers and participates in Agriculture Department initiatives aimed at helping SNAP recipients purchase fresh produce and dairy products.
Yet, SNAP reductions may compel Wrightâs Market to increase prices or reduce staff.
âIf our revenue declines, weâll need to find ways to compensate to stay afloat,â Wright said.
The Agriculture Department has stated that every 5innewSNAPbenefitsgeneratesupto9 in local economic activity. A 2020 study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, found that food stamps also lead to more stores, higher employment, increased sales, and better wages.
SNAP is âessential for stores to survive,â said Wright, who also advocates nationally for independent grocers. Small stores âcanât afford to lose sales volume and are more reliant on a robust SNAP program and customersâ ability to use it.â
âMore Food Deserts in Urban and Rural Areasâ
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law will slash federal SNAP spending by approximately $187 billion over the next decade.
House Republicans argue that the changes will ârestore integrityâ to the program and benefit grocers by encouraging more people to seek employment. The new work requirements extend to parents with children over 13 and individuals aged 55 to 64.
âA substantial number of people currently on SNAP due to unemployment will now have opportunities to improve their circumstances, enabling them to buy more food. Consequently, our grocers will thrive,â House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican and key negotiator in the plan to reduce SNAP funding, told Politico.
However, studies indicate that work requirements for SNAP do not boost employment.
SNAP cuts may even lead to job losses. A study earlier this year by the nonprofit research group Commonwealth Fund estimated that the reductions could result in the loss of 143,000 food-related jobs across agriculture, retail grocery, and food processing.
The grocery industry has vigorously opposed the funding decrease. In 2023, SNAP accounted for $124 billion in sales at 262,000 retailers, with half of those sales occurring at superstores like Walmart and a quarter at supermarkets.
SNAP generates âa tremendous amount of economic activity focused on a specific sectorâgrocers,â said James Ziliak, founding director of the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky. âA key benefit of SNAP is that the money is spent locally.â
âIt is a crucial component of the local economy in poor communities, both urban and rural,â as well as wealthier areas with significant low-income populations, he added.
John Ross, CEO of IGA, a chain of independent grocery stores, estimates that total SNAP funding will decrease by 5-6% in the short term and 8-9% in the long run. Those figures, he said, could determine whether âgrocery stores survive or fail.â
âThereâs a risk of creating more food deserts in urban and rural areas,â he added.
Stabilizer During Downturns
Many economists consider SNAP one of the most effective social safety net programs because it automatically stabilizes the economy during downturns. As incomes fall, SNAP spending typically rises as more people become eligible and enroll.
Between 2018 and 2023, 12% of U.S. households received food assistance. Roughly half were families or included a person with a disability. To qualify, households must be at or below 130% of the federal poverty level, among other criteria.
SNAP has succeeded because it integrates with the market, said Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, a Northwestern University economist specializing in social policy.
SNAP relies on the âprivate sector to supply the food people purchase. It leverages our strengths,â she said. âThe government excels at providing resources for people to spend through regular commercial channelsâat local stores.â
But the new law introduces several major SNAP changes that will affect grocers immediately and in the future.
Rather than drawing more individuals into the workforce, the work requirement alterations will likely push people in poverty off food assistance, Schanzenbach said.
âThese individuals face significant barriers to employment. Itâs not that theyâre idle and playing video games,â she said. âThey struggle with addiction and mental health issues. Threatening to take away their food wonât make them workâit defies logic.â
The legislation also shifts some federal program costs to states for the first time.
Since states have more limited borrowing capacity than the federal government, SNAP will become a less effective stabilizer during the next recession or state budget crisis, Schanzenbach said.
During the Great Recession, SNAP was the largest source of spending for low-income Americans, helping keep businesses open.
âPeople still need to eat,â she said. But instead of shopping at grocery stores and boosting the local economy, âtheyâll have to rely on food banks, which canât meet the demand.â
