Monday, January 13, 2025
■ Today's Top News
"It's outrageous that Trump and House Republicans are threatening to withhold recovery aid if their conditions aren't met," said a leader in the Working Families Party.
By Eloise Goldsmith
The deputy national director of the Working Families Party had sharp words for a group of House Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump, who, according to Politico reporting published Monday, discussed tying fire relief for California to the politically charged issue of increasing the debt ceiling.
The reporting comes as California continues to battle fires in the Los Angeles area that have consumed tens of thousands of acres and left over 20 people dead. The scale of the destruction could make them, collectively, the costliest wildfire disaster in U.S. history, a climate scientist told the Los Angeles Times last week.
"The Palisades wildfires have destroyed homes, schools, and businesses and left thousands of families without a roof over their heads. It's outrageous that Trump and House Republicans are threatening to withhold recovery aid if their conditions aren't met," said Working Families Party deputy national director Joe Dinkin in a statement Monday.
"Every Republican should be on the record denouncing this abominable plan," he added.
Per Politico, nearly two dozen House Republicans attended a dinner at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club over the weekend where the option was discussed.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Fla.), who was not a part of the conversation but did later confirm the conversation, must deal with the looming debt cliff, which is set to be reached sometime in mid-January, and he faces obstacles within his own party. In December, fractures appeared in the GOP when fiscal hawks refused to back legislation that Trump supported that would have raised the debt limit.
Johnson has also said he would try to lift the debt limit by including it in a reconciliation bill full of President-elect Donald Trump's legislative priorities, though this could run afoul with those same fiscal hawks. Some House Republicans reportedly brought up the pitfalls of this option during discussions at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.
Of the potential move to link fire relief to the debt ceiling, Politico reported: "The Sunday night discussions prove Republicans are desperately looking for a plan before the nation is due to exhaust its borrowing authority—though Democrats and some Republicans are sure to balk at the prospect of linking disaster relief dollars to a politically charged exercise like extending the debt limit."
Congress recently passed a spending bill that included funding for natural disaster relief, but scope of the destruction in California has some officials wondering if more may be needed, Politico reports.
"Defeating the MAGA movement does not require clever theories, it requires the hard work of opposition on behalf of the millions who will suffer at the hands of Trump's corporate Cabinet."
By Julia Conley
The government watchdog group Revolving Door Project on Monday denounced Democratic lawmakers for the "perfunctory resistance" with which they appear to be preparing for confirmation hearings on President-elect Donald Trump's nominees to lead federal agencies, saying some in the party's upper ranks appear willing to allow far-right appointees to sail to top government positions without facing a true opposition party.
As Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told NOTUS on Monday, some of Trump's nominees are "objectionable," but others "are going to get bipartisan support."
Jeff Hauser, executive director of Revolving Door Project (RDP), acknowledged that with Republicans now holding 53 seats in the Senate and the Democratic Party holding 45, "Democrats do not have the votes to kill any of these nominations."
"But they do have the ability to begin drawing attention to the cronyism that will inevitably appear from within the Trump administration. Contrary to the party's current position, being able to say 'I told you so' is helpful to future success," said Hauser.
Democrats aren't ensuring they'll have the ability to say that, Hauser warned, as they signal little resistance "to the few Trump nominees so brazenly offputting that they draw nearly uniform skepticism."
"For all the Trump nominees not accused of killing a dog or committing heinous crimes, Democrats do not seem poised to offer even a whisper of resistance, no matter how unqualified," said Hauser.
"Democrats must find their inner populists and fight at all times, even in battles that they will almost certainly lose."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) held a meeting Monday with Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee to discuss the upcoming questioning of defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth this week, saying his upcoming confirmation hearing on Tuesday will provide the party an opportunity to attack the GOP's "brand." Hegseth has been accused of sexual assault, which he has denied.
But the party has not called attention to problems with nominees like Scott Bessent, Trump's treasury secretary nominee, or Chris Wright, the fracking CEO who has denied the climate emergency and whom Trump picked to run the Department of Energy (DOE).
"Senate Democrats have failed to question how Scott Bessent's experience of running a second-tier hedge fund with declining assets under management qualifies him to hold one of the most powerful economic policymaking in the world," said Hauser.
"Or how Chris Wright's experience as an unhinged plutocrat out of touch with scientific reality would qualify him to manage some of the world's most important laboratories."
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told NOTUS that Democrats are prepared to use the confirmation hearings to answer the question: "Are they fighting for Americans, or are they going to fight for the kind of cronyism politics that's really hurt this place?"
"I want to support nominees that are going to really fight for the American people, not fight for special interests, not fight for rich people, not fight to take away our freedoms," he told NOTUS.
But with nominees like hedge fund manager Bessent, former corporate lobbyist Pam Bondi for attorney general, cryptocurrency promoter Howard Lutnick for commerce secretary, and Medicare Advantage proponent Mehmet Oz to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Hauser said Democrats shouldn't act as though the nominees' conflicts of interest and loyalty to the wealthy are a question.
"Every senior Trump administration official will have the discretion to exercise presidential authority on behalf of corporate interests in ways that will hurt ordinary Americans. Workers, consumers, breathers of air—every typical American is at risk from the most corporate captured set of nominees in American history," said Hauser. "Democrats should be telling this story now, not only to raise alarms ahead of the inauguration, but to be able to tell a compelling story about what went wrong and why when things inevitably decline across so many critical fronts in the next few years."
Instead, Booker told NOTUS that the party is "not looking to make this partisanship or tribalism."
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), for his part, met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and told NOTUS his plan going into confirmation hearings is "to listen." He has expressed support for secretary of state nominee Marco Rubio, United Nations ambassador nominee Elisa Stefanik, and transportation secretary nominee Sean Duffy.
"Senate Democrats are seeking strategic retreat wherever possible, convinced that 'opposition' is a bad strategy for the opposition party," Hauser warned.
In a post at RDP's Substack newsletter, research assistant KJ Boyle wrote that the problem with Booker and Fetterman's approach "is that Trump's picks are partisan, chosen for their loyalty both to him and the moneyed interests they'll ostensibly be tasked with overseeing. Now is not the time to sit back and listen. It's time to make a big stink about how unqualified and dangerous these nominees are, and explain how that will translate to real world consequences that harm everyday people."
The group plans to release suggested questions for Democrats to ask at each of the confirmation hearings in the coming days; Boyle started with Wright, interior secretary nominee Doug Burgum, and Office of Management and Budget director nominee Russell Vought.
He suggested senators ask Wright about his former company, trade association Western Energy Alliance, and its public comment opposing energy efficiency standards for gas stoves.
"The public comment erroneously claimed the DOE's rule was 'intended to ban new gas stoves and compel a transition to electric,' rather than a commonsense rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and save consumers money," Boyle wrote in a suggested question. "Moreover, are you aware that approximately 13% of childhood asthma cases can be attributed to nitrogen dioxide exposure from gas stoves? Do you believe the federal government has no role in protecting our children from exposure to these hazardous airborne pollutants?"
Boyle suggested senators ask Vought about his record of budget cuts that have harmed low-income families, and ask Burgum why he opposed a rule requiring coal plants to reduce mercury emissions, which are linked to heart attacks, cancer, and developmental delays in children.
"Why do you think that the coal industry should be given handouts and allowed to make people sick?" Boyle suggested senators ask.
Hauser said that Democrats' electoral defeat in November has left them "doubling down on an ostrich-like strategy of hiding their heads until Donald Trump goes away."
"But the MAGA movement will not go away on its own, it will have to be defeated," he said. "Defeating the MAGA movement does not require clever theories, it requires the hard work of opposition on behalf of the millions who will suffer at the hands of Trump's corporate Cabinet. Democrats must find their inner populists and fight at all times, even in battles that they will almost certainly lose."
"There is never a better opportunity to find an opposition's voice," he said, "than when a would-be populist president appoints a corporate-owned Cabinet."
"We can offer views that are untainted by the appearance of corruption or self-dealing."
By Jessica Corbett
Public Citizen co-presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman on Monday requested to serve on U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency "as voices for the interests of consumers and the public who are the beneficiaries of federal regulatory and spending programs."
Shortly after Trump's November victory, the Republican announced that he asked billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead DOGE, a presidential advisory commission that he said would work "to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies."
Since then, numerous watchdog groups, Democratic lawmakers, and others have sounded the alarm about DOGE and its leaders, blasting the commission as a thinly veiled attack on federal programs—including Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security—connected to the GOP trifecta's effort to pass more tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations.
"Public Citizen has concerns about DOGE's structure and mission," the group's co-presidents wrote to Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon, co-chairs of Trump's transition team. "In structure, an advisory committee led by individuals such as Messrs. Musk and Ramaswamy who hold financial interests that will be directly affected by federal budgetary policies presents substantial conflict of interest concerns that threaten to undermine public confidence in the committee's recommendations to the administration."
"Mr. Trump and OMB should take steps to ensure that DOGE's advice and recommendations take into consideration the viewpoints of the consumers and citizens who would be directly affected."
Musk, the world's richest person, has leadership roles at companies including Tesla, SpaceX, and X. He has often been at Trump's side in the lead-up to next week's inauguration. Ramaswamy, who ran for president in the latest cycle before ultimately backing Trump, has founded a pharmaceutical company and an investment firm.
Gilbert and Weissman wrote that DOGE's mission to advise the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "on how to 'slash excess regulation' and 'cut wasteful expenditures' puts at risk important consumer safeguards and public protections, because it focuses only on eliminating rules and spending without considering the other half of the picture: more efficiently regulating corporations to better protect consumers and the public from harmful corporate practices, and making sound and efficient public investments."
"In light of the significant influence that DOGE is expected to have on the administration's fiscal and regulatory policy," they argued, "Mr. Trump and OMB should take steps to ensure that DOGE's advice and recommendations take into consideration the viewpoints of the consumers and citizens who would be directly affected by the regulatory and spending proposals that DOGE will advance, not only the viewpoint of wealthy businesspeople."
The pair made the case that their appointment to the commission "would not raise conflict of interest concerns."
Before Gilbert joined Public Citizen, she was an advocate at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and worked as a campaign director to pass legislation on social justice and environmental issues for various organizations. Weissman previously directed the corporate accountability group Essential Action, edited the magazine Multinational Monitor, and worked as a public interest attorney at the Center for Study of Responsive Law.
"Unlike Musk, neither Rob nor I, nor Public Citizen, has a financial interest in federal government contracts and spending. In bringing the consumer and public perspective to DOGE, we can offer views that are untainted by the appearance of corruption or self-dealing," Gilbert said in a statement.
Weissman emphasized that "all signs suggest the nonrepresentative DOGE co-chairs aim to use 'efficiency' as a cover to drive a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda, and an ideologically driven social service cuts program. This would constitute an anti-efficiency agenda."
"On the other hand, Lisa and I are prepared to offer a range of evidence-based efficiency proposals—to slash drug prices, end privatized Medicare, reduce the wasteful Pentagon budget—that would save American taxpayers and consumers hundreds of billions of dollars every year," he explained. "We also have recommendations for smart, efficient public investments—in human development and to address climate change—that will have a positive monetary return for the government and society."
As the letter highlights, Public Citizen—which "has worked to hold the government and corporations accountable to the people, including by focusing on research and advocacy with respect to regulation of health, safety, consumer finance, and the environment" since its founding in 1971—has already offered DOGE some recommendations.
"Consistent with Public Citizen's mission—and that of DOGE—Public Citizen on December 20, 2024, sent Messrs. Musk and Ramaswamy a letter proposing two measures that would save the government and taxpayers billions of dollars, while improving health and access to medicines: authorizing generic competition to anti-obesity medications and implementing the Medicare drug price negotiation and inflation rebate programs to lower drug prices," Gilbert and Weissman wrote.
They also noted that appointing them to DOGE "would be an important step towards compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires 'the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee.'"
In addition to outlining concerns about Musk and Ramaswamy, they detailed that "DOGE member Katie Miller's background is in handling press relations for government officials. William McGinley worked as a lawyer for various Republican Party groups and big law firms. Other people reported in the media as connected with DOGE also appear to have corporate backgrounds. These individuals lack the consumer and public interest perspective needed if Mr. Trump expects DOGE to have any hope of complying with FACA."
Over 50,000 scientists and supporters called on Congress to "defend against Trump's anti-science actions."
By Julia Conley
With a president-elect who has called the climate crisis a "hoax" and vowed to gut fossil fuel drilling regulations poised to take office in one week, more than 50,000 scientists and advocates on Monday implored U.S. lawmakers to consider the incoming administration's "respect for science" as they vote on Cabinet nominees and provide oversight of the Trump White House over the next four years.
Organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a petition signed by 50,588 scientists and experts was sent to every member of Congress, asking them to "defend the science and scientists that keep Americans safe" after President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20.
The Republican leader's agenda, and the policies outlined in the right-wing policymaking plan Project 2025, threaten to "eviscerate the protections that Americans count on and support," reads the petition.
During his first administration, Trump rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to develop regulations under the Clean Air Act and repealed the Clean Water Rule, and he and his nominee for secretary of health and human services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have signaled they would purge the ranks of the Food and Drug Administration. Researchers at the EPA are also bracing for a "swift and unprecedented" upheaval, with Trump expected to repeal vehicle and methane emissions regulations.
During his presidential campaign, Trump asked oil executives for $1 billion in donations, promising to repay them by gutting President Joe Biden's climate regulations.
"Rolling back science-based policies and silencing scientists has the potential to turn back the clock on the immense progress science has made over past decades, jeopardizing public health, economic stability, national security, and the future livability of the climate."
"The reason behind the Trump administration's radical proposals to sideline science and scientists is crystal clear: Science stands in the way of polluters and special interests unleashing unprecedented amounts of pollution that would put short-term profits over people, no matter the cost to current and future generations of Americans," reads the petition sent to Congress.
The petition calls on lawmakers to:
- Oppose anti-science nominees to any federal agency who do not agree on the record to follow and/or implement a scientific integrity policy in their agency;
- Oppose the elimination of federal agencies or their staff directly or indirectly including through draconian budget cuts, reclassifying staff, or abruptly moving agency headquarters, all of which are a transparent and explicit effort to decimate scientific expertise and decision-making; and
- Defend the safeguards that protect the health and safety of people across the United States, especially those overburdened by pollution, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
The petition was bolstered by an open letter sent to 99 U.S. senators, including those sitting on committees that will play a significant role in approving or blocking Trump's Cabinet nominees. The letter, also sent Monday and signed by a coalition of 28 organizations, calls on senators to "ensure nominees are only confirmed if they have the necessary qualifications to succeed in their roles, do not have conflicts of interest, accept established science related to their agency's mission, and value the role of rigorous science, free from political interference, in government decision-making."
Trump's nominees including former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, an oil drilling proponent, for interior secretary; fracking firm CEO Chris Wright for energy secretary; and former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), who repeatedly voted against Clean Air Act standards, as EPA administrator.
"Agency leaders must respond effectively to a variety of threats, from cyberattacks to hurricanes and pandemics," reads the letter, signed by the Endangered Species Coalition, Greenpeace USA, and the National Resources Defense Council. "To do so, they must value science and consider evidence that can help them make well-informed decisions. Our organizations urge you to consider nominees' respect for science in confirmation hearings and votes."
The groups called on senators to only confirm nominees who are free of conflicts of interest and who have relevant qualifications, such as "academic degrees and respect for the mission of the agency or program they are nominated to lead."
Agency leaders, they said, should also demonstrate respect for scientific integrity: "the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities."
The idea of allowing scientists to work without fear of political interference "has long had bipartisan support," noted the groups, which quoted Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) as saying at a hearing on the Scientific Integrity Act in 2019, "Scientific findings are often relied upon by policymakers to make important decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans... To maintain the public's trust, there must be a high degree of integrity and transparency in the scientific process."
Agency leaders who interfere with scientific research or who allow their conflicts of interest to interfere with regulating the oil and gas industry, Big Pharma, and public health agencies "would be disastrous for our nation," said the groups, as they would be likely to ignore or misrepresent "scientific evidence in order to make it appear that an appointee's preferred course of action is the clear solution."
"This could take the form of cherry-picking evidence based on ideology or actively advancing misinformation, with potentially deadly results," wrote the groups. "For instance, if a vaccine were developed in response to a new pandemic, as it was during the triumphant Operation Warp Speed of the first Trump administration, an agency leader might hamper vaccine uptake by emphasizing the very small proportion of vaccine recipients who suffered a side effect serious enough to require medical attention without comparing it to the far larger number of severe illnesses averted."
At upcoming confirmation hearings, the groups urged senators to ask nominees whether they commit to: upholding scientific integrity, "ensuring that the findings of scientific research conducted by your agency will be communicated accurately," and using "the best available scientific evidence to inform decisions and evidence-based policies."
"Rolling back science-based policies and silencing scientists has the potential to turn back the clock on the immense progress science has made over past decades, jeopardizing public health, economic stability, national security, and the future livability of the climate," said Dr. Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS.
"Protecting science means protecting people—full stop," said Jones. "The broad consensus among scientists demonstrates the urgency we all feel to protect independent science in government decision-making."
"Don't be fooled: What this Koch-backed group is really only after is protecting tax cuts for wealthy people like me," said the chair of the Patriotic Millionaires.
By Jake Johnson
A right-wing advocacy group founded by the billionaire Koch brothers announced Monday the launch of a $20 million campaign to promote an extension of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax cuts, which disproportionately benefited the rich and large corporations.
But in a 60-second ad that debuted over the weekend, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) characterizes the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a boon to "hardworking Americans" and small businesses—and warns that allowing provisions of the law to expire at the end of this year as scheduled would be disastrous for the working class.
"This year, Congress is facing a countdown to a crisis that threatens family budgets nationwide," Ross Connolly, AFP's regional state director, said in a statement Monday. "We are proud to partner with the incoming Trump administration to protect prosperity and ensure that Congress acts."
AFP is a 501(c)(4) organization that describes itself as a "grassroots" movement despite being launched by Charles Koch and his late brother, David—two of the most notorious right-wing billionaire in U.S. politics.
The group said its new 50-state campaign represents "the largest effort by a conservative organization" to support President-elect Donald Trump's legislative agenda as he prepares to take office next week. The campaign, according to AFP, will include "over 1,000 meetings" at congressional offices, "in-district events" with activists and lawmakers, and "roundtables with job creators."
The campaign aims to "reach millions of voters on the phone and at their doorsteps," AFP said.
"The Trump tax giveaways passed in 2017 did not help working-class Americans. In fact, the top 1% of corporations received almost all of the benefits."
AFP's description of the impacts of the 2017 tax law flies in the face of resounding evidence showing that wealthy Americans—not ordinary workers—were the chief beneficiaries and are poised to reap most of the rewards once again if Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress extend the measure's soon-to-expire provisions.
"Americans for Prosperity is spending $20 million on a new ad campaign that champions the 2017 Trump tax law as a win for working families," Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, told Common Dreams. "But don't be fooled: What this Koch-backed group is really only after is protecting tax cuts for wealthy people like me."
"I'm in favor of tax relief for working people, but not yet another huge and unnecessary windfall for America's rich," Pearl added. "If Congress wants to help working families, they should make tax rates on labor income the same as tax rates on profits made by investors."
AFP is one of a number of right-wing, corporate-tied organizations pushing for an extension of the Trump tax cuts, which Republicans are planning to fund by slashing Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and other key programs.
The progressive watchdog group Accountable.US noted in a recent analysis that one of the groups pushing for an extension of the 2017 law is Advancing American Freedom, an organization "run by corporate consultants, lobbyists, lawyers, and executives, including former Trump administration officials who were directly responsible for the TCJA."
Accountable also observes that Club for Growth, a group funded by wealthy conservatives, "has pushed a deeper corporate tax cut plan as an 'opening salvo' in the current tax debate."
"The billionaire funders of the group's action arm have benefited enormously from the TCJA, saving hundreds of millions of dollars from a single obscure tax break for pass-through entities," the watchdog added.
In response to AFP's new nationwide campaign, Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk told Common Dreams that "a glitzy ad campaign from a far-right organization won't change the fact that the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress are paying for giveaways to billionaires, wealthy tax cheats, and price-gouging corporations by cutting critical services for working families, like Medicaid and SNAP."
"The Trump tax giveaways passed in 2017 did not help working-class Americans," said Carrk. "In fact, the top 1% of corporations received almost all of the benefits."
"It won't be any consolation to struggling Americans that their hardship allows some rich buddy of Donald Trump's to buy a bigger yacht," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
By Jake Johnson
Policy analysts and Democratic lawmakers raised alarm over the weekend at a leaked document indicating that House Republicans intend to pursue massive cuts to Medicaid, a program that provides sometimes lifesaving coverage to roughly 80 million people across the United States.
Near the top of a list of "spending reform options" that House Republicans are considering to help finance additional tax cuts for the rich and large corporations are proposals that would strip Medicaid coverage from millions of Americans, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities.
One of the changes listed in the leaked document, obtained by Politico last week, would convert Medicaid's funding structure to a "per-capita cap," under which the federal government would only provide states with a fixed amount of funding for each beneficiary rather than paying a percentage of states' overall Medicaid costs.
The document, which reportedly comes from the House Budget Committee, suggests the reform would result in up to $918 billion in cuts over a 10-year period.
Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy's Center for Children and Families, noted in a blog post that such a change would "radically restructure Medicaid financing."
"These funding caps are typically designed to fail to keep pace with expected growth in healthcare costs in order to severely cut federal Medicaid spending, with those cuts growing larger and larger over time," Park wrote. "Moreover, the caps would also fail to account for any unexpected cost growth such as from another public health emergency or a new, costly drug therapy, which would make the federal funding cuts even larger than originally anticipated."
"These cuts would only help bankroll Trump's tax cuts for his billionaire friends and corporate interests."
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities warned in an analysis published last week that cuts to federal funding under a per-capita cap "would impose significant strain on states and put millions of people at risk of losing benefits and coverage."
The document also includes a call to "Equalize Medicaid Payments for Able Bodied Adults"—a proposal seen as an indication that the GOP plans to go after the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion—and confirms that Republicans intend to push for Medicaid work requirements, which have proved disastrous in the states that have tried such mandates.
Park argued that work requirements—and the "onerous red tape" they entail—would amplify the harms of cuts to federal Medicaid funding.
"As a result, these proposals would take away coverage and access from tens of millions of low-income children, families, seniors, people with disabilities, and other adults who rely on Medicaid," Park wrote. "Moreover, because Medicaid is the largest source of federal funding for states—accounting for 56.1% of all federal funding for state budgets in 2024—these large cost-shifts to states would also threaten deep, damaging budget cuts to other state spending including for K-12 education."
Overall, the leaked Republican document proposes up to $5.7 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years—with Medicaid cuts making up $2.3 trillion of that total—as President-elect Donald Trump pushes for a sprawling reconciliation bill that includes another round of tax cuts that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans.
In addition to Medicaid cuts, the House GOP policy menu calls for slashing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and federal nutrition assistance, repealing "major Biden health rules," and eliminating renewable energy funding under the Inflation Reduction Act.
"This won't lower costs for Americans," Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote in response to the GOP document. "These cuts would only help bankroll Trump's tax cuts for his billionaire friends and corporate interests."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the leaked policy list shows that "Republicans are gearing up for a class war against everyday families in America."
"This list outlines a plan to increase child hunger, boot tens of millions off their health insurance, and lay off hundreds of thousands of clean energy workers to fund tax handouts for the wealthy," said Wyden. "It won't be any consolation to struggling Americans that their hardship allows some rich buddy of Donald Trump's to buy a bigger yacht."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.