House Republicans Just Voted to Slash Health Care and Food Assistance to Cut Taxes for the Rich.
70+ million Americans depend on Medicaid. 40+ million Americans depend on SNAP to help pay for their groceries. The GOP voted to gut those programs to pay for tax cuts that blow up the federal budget.
$4.5 trillion in tax cuts that primarily benefit the richest people. $2 trillion in reduced health care and food benefits for the poor and working class. That’s what the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted for in their “budget framework” a few hours ago.
The Republican budget details are still emerging, and will have to be negotiated with the Senate and President Donald Trump. The Senate passed their version of the budget last week. The Senate bill did not include the gigantic tax cuts nor the enormous spending reductions in the House bill.
The Senate, House, and President must negotiate and pass a budget before the March 14 deadline to avoid a government shutdown.
NOTE—I apologize for recycling content from a couple of weeks ago, but I am trying to be efficient and do my part to cancel waste, fraud, and abuse. The following information also seems very relevant to the U.S. House of Representatives voting to loot the federal treasury so that Wall Street and Silicon Valley and real estate developers pay lower taxes than those of us who make $27,000 per year (that’s not a joke—that’s what I made in 2024—you can help me stay at it by subscribing if you’re able). And yes I feel like a big jerk explicitly asking for donations but I could really use them right now. Thank you for understanding and no pressure. I won’t make this a habit. Ugh.
As reported earlier by The Cocklebur, the House budget would radically slash two of the most important federal programs that serve rural people while supporting rural economies:
Cutting more than $200 billion from the Agriculture Committees—House Agriculture Committee Republicans have long called for deep cuts to SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs formerly known as food stamps). SNAP cuts would be one of the only ways to achieve such large budget reductions over the next decade. These cuts would have a disproportionately negative impact on rural household food security.
Slashing nearly a trillion from the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that funds Medicaid—Republican leaders in the House Ways and Means Committee would likely try to cut Medicaid to achieve this level of budget reductions over the next decade. Medicaid cuts would have negative health outcomes and increase the number of uninsured people throughout rural America, especially in states that have participated in the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion program.
SNAP Cuts in Rural:
Rural America has larger SNAP participation rates than metropolitan counties. A 2021 FRAC analysis found that 14.4% of rural households participate in SNAP, while small town counties (13.8%) and metropolitan counties (11.3%) had lower participation rates. An estimated 2.5 million rural households depend on SNAP to help pay for groceries.
In addition to providing monthly benefits to help pay for food, SNAP benefits help to sustain many rural grocery stores. SNAP benefits can make up large percentages of grocery sales and help to retain local jobs. USDA researchers have found that $1 dollar in food stamps generates $1.79 in additional economic activity. The 2010 report estimates that every $1 billion in SNAP spending was responsible for creating 10,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, including about 1,000 jobs in the ag industry. More recent updates have found an economy-wide multiplier of $1.54 for every $1 of SNAP benefits.
Republicans would likely use several strategies in their crusade to reduce SNAP grocery benefits by $230 billion over the next decade. There are proposals to expand work requirements and/or to limit what foods can be purchased with SNAP benefit cards. But the most important issue is addressing how the monthly benefit amount is determined.
In 2021, the Biden Administration updated the “Thrifty Food Plan,” the mechanism that determines minimum cost for a healthy diet. The update was the first substantive change since the 1970s, and resulted in a 23% increase in benefits. Rolling back those benefits would cut SNAP spending by $250 billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
CBPP developed the following list of consequences that these proposed cuts could mean:
Medicaid Cuts in Rural:
A recent Georgetown University study, “Medicaid’s Role in Small Towns and Rural Areas,” found that cutting Medicaid would have a negative impact on rural communities and small towns. A larger portion of rural populations depend on Medicaid than in metropolitan areas. That’s because rural populations tend to be poorer and sicker than metropolitan populations.
The rural parts of the following states would be impacted most deeply by proposed Medicaid cuts, according to the Georgetown study:
One likely Republican proposal would be to eliminate state-based Medicaid expansion cost share payments from the federal government. Federal funds currently pay for 90% of Medicaid benefits, with states committing to paying for 10%. Most states have adopted Medicaid expansion.
The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) just issued this report, “Eliminating the Medicaid Expansion Federal Match Rate: State-by-State Estimates,” to help inform the current policy debate. In the scenario that states drop the ACA Medicaid expansion in response to the elimination of the 90% federal match rate, Medicaid spending across all states for a would “result in a 25% (or $1.7 trillion) decrease in federal Medicaid spending and a 5% (or $186 billion) decrease in state Medicaid spending” in the next decade. Medicaid spending would decrease by nearly one-fifth (or $1.9 trillion), and “nearly a quarter of all Medicaid enrollees (20 million people) would lose coverage.”
The Cocklebur covers rural policy and politics from a progressive point-of-view. Our work focuses on a tangled rural political reality of dishonest debate, economic and racial disparities, corporate power over our democracy, and disinformation peddled by conservative media outlets. We aim to use facts, data, and science to inform our point-of-view. We wear our complicated love/WTF relationship with rural America on our sleeve.
So Johnson cut the snap benefits for his own state which has a large portion of the population on them. Also won’t help local grocery businesses much either What a sorry excuse for a human being