Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Punishes the Poor (Week 22/23)

The problem with the rich is that there is never enough money for them. Someone once set a goal to become a “millionaire by age 40.’ Well, guess what? That goal was set over forty years ago when “Top Gun” was the hottest movie in town. Now, you must aspire to become a mega-millionaire for a golden-parachute. But why stop there?

And this is the mentality of too many in the top 20% of America today, who own almost 80% of the nation’s wealth. They have a contest going whereby all that matters is “how big a splash they make in the society-pages.” What matters is that they have a “different agenda than the rest of America.” Or the planet for that matter. They need tens of billions for the SpaceX Program, Mars Mission, Golden Dome Missile Program, and Department of Defense programs in anticipation of war with China, while also enriching their pockets via Wall Street.

Part of the new funds are listed in the H.R. 1 Title II — Committee on Armed Services, but June 28th’s Senate Amendment SA 2360 piles on even more debt for U.S. Space Command under Title IV — Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Bear in mind that the Pentagon is already funded by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025 (H.R. 5009) passed in July 2024; so these are more additional piles of money (or essentially more debt, since money created by thin air is added to the National Debt).

“Section 20306. Special appropriations for Mars missions, Artemis missions, and Moon to Mars program, (a) In General — In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Administration for fiscal year 2025, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $9,995,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2032, to use as follows…”

Ten billion extra dollars for the U.S. Space Command program on top of the trillion dollar Defense Budget, but meanwhile, hundreds of billions of dollars are to be trimmed off of the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, LIHEAP, Federal Student Loan Programs, Planned Parenthood, and the Affordable Care Act.

What Legislators are Concerned About

The Democrats in the House and the Senate were given only days to review the amended version of H.R. 1 because President Trump had set an arbitrary deadline of July 4th to sign his new “signature” legislation. The debate in the House was curtailed by the Committee on Rules, chaired by Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. This Chair and her cohorts also made sure to repeatedly remind the Democratic Representatives “not to engage in personalities toward the President” and to “address remarks to the Chair” and to “avoid embellishments and overspeak.” She admonished when Representatives described the bill as “bad” “ugly” “cruel” “immoral” “Trumpcare” or quoted from the Book of Matthew of the New Testament of the Bible, such as Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee did:

“‘For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.'”—Matthew 25:35-36, quoted by Repr. Steve Cohen (TN-9, Memphis)

A number of Democrats including Dr. Kelly Morrison, Rep. (Minn-03) asserted that the bill is “immoral” “a betrayal” “chilling” “soul-crushing” and “wrong“:

“I never want to hear Republicans say they are the party of families ever again. Half of all children in the United States of America get their health care coverage through Medicaid. One in every four children in the United States of America get food assistance through SNAP. Republicans are taking away health care and food from our children in order to prioritize billionaires and perpetuate wealth inequality.” —- Dr. Kelly Morrison, Representative from Minnesota

Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas shared personal testimony on the House Floor that he could only afford the life-saving medicine he takes to treat his neuroendocrine cancer because of subsidized healthcare, including programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and other insurance that guarantees treatment even with pre-existing conditions, such as mandated by former President Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act. Numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus also testified that had it not been for SNAP and Student Loan Programs, they could not have transitioned into the middle-class and become the legislators that they are today.

But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ (NY-9) proposed Amendment to strike out all references to any cuts to SNAP and Medicaid was soundly rejected by the Speaker Mike Johnson, no matter that all of the CBC and Democratic Caucuses lined up to voice support. No further amendments besides the Senate Amendment would be entertained despite numerous House members plying the Rules Committee with proposals. Each Democratic/Independent member literally begged that Jeffries’ Amendment be considered:

“Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the Rule: to make an order the Amendment at the Desk that Protects Against Any Cuts to Medicaid and SNAP”—CBC, Democratic Caucus

The unfailing response by the Republican on behalf of the House Committee on Rules Chair:

“The Gentlelady from North Carolina has not yielded for that purpose and therefore the Unanimous Consent Request cannot be entertained” —House GOP

On the House Floor, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (NY-14) also offered her analysis on the superficiality of the much touted “No Tax on Tips” from Republicans about H.R. 1. She labels it a “scam” because unlike the permanent tax breaks for the rich, the “No Tax on Tips” lasts for the next four years only, and there is a cap on income over $25,000 dollars. Another Congresswoman pointed out that based on her experience as a past waitress, she still just used the Standard Deduction. AOC asserts that it is still a net loss for a working waitress because it will be much harder for her to quality for SNAP and Medicaid for her children. Plus the aggregate effects of food and special education cuts in public schools will make the ability to afford childcare more difficult. AOC closed with the exclamation, “This is designed to strip away our dignity!”

Congressman Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), leader of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus mentioned during the House Rules debate that one of the (many) unintended consequences of this bill will be that small businesses accepting SNAP and EBT cards will be negatively impacted, including many NYC bodegas and small grocers. He issued this statement following the bill’s July 3rd passage by a close 218-214 vote:

“Once again Donald Trump has proven where his loyalties lie — with the extremely wealthy like his buddy Elon Musk. Donald Trump has no problem taking from poor to give to the wealthy. These cuts are a matter of life and death. If this bill becomes law, people will die from lack of food, from lack of healthcare, and from lack of housing. This bill fails to uphold the values of our nation and is misaligned with the interests of working families—while making grocery bills and health care more expensive for tens of millions of Americans who rely on this assistance.” —-Repr. Adriano Espaillat, New York

At the July 2nd Congressional Hispanic Caucus Press Briefing before the House Vote, Dr. Raul Ruiz (CA-25) told the public:

“This bill will create the largest amount of people uninsured in our nation’s history…They will have to pay more out-of-pocket. Those 17 million will become uncompensated care at your local hospitals. Hospitals will incurr the costs; they will transfer it onto people by increasing premiums; and everybody will pay for that. In addition to this, the $150 billion reduction in payments to hospitals, the $240 billion cuts to the provider tax that the states rely on to help hospitals, and due to the increase in uncompensated care, there’s going to be 20% of our rural hospitals are going to close. Now think about it, whether you have Medicare, private insurance, or Medicaid, if you have an emergency, which hospital are you going to go to if they’re closed? As an emergency medicine doctor, I know that you have about a 10-15 minute window when you’re having a heart attack or a stroke to get the care to prevent long-term damage and to save your life. If you don’t have a hospital in your neighborhood, you’re going to be at-risk for permanent disability or even death, and that’s why this bill is so dangerous.”

Representative Jim Costa (CA-21) whose district includes most of Fresno, CA, explained at the CHC Press briefing how this will hurt many people in the Valley farm region. Like other Representatives, he emphasizes the complex compounding negative effects on the working poor and the local economy, despite claims by the GOP that H.R.1 helps the working class. For instance, despite being in the middle of the summer harvest for peaches and nectarines, Latino workers are hard to find because of their fear of ICE raids. Even when they are residents and have visas, many of their children rely on SNAP (called CalFresh) and Medicaid (called Medi-Cal). The issue is compounded by a trade war affecting the ability to export fruit, and causing layoffs at the ports and in related industries. Several other Congressional Hispanic Caucus Representatives described the type of abuse which ICE is subjecting Latino residents to, even when they are legal residents, including beating, detention, searches, shake-down, “denaturalization” and administrative overreach that is breaking families apart.

What is becoming of our nation when providing humanitarian services such as refugee sanctuary, food, housing, medical care, education, and job opportunties for the poor is derided as “socialist”? America is supposed to be a model democracy, the most civilized nation on Earth, yet we are regressing in our care for babies, maternity care, seniors, and the sick, and now we will fall behind the standard of affordable medical care offered to the public in other developing nations, including the Republic of China (Taiwan) and China (PRC).

When hospitals such as the Community Regional Medical Care Center (CRMCC) in California are forced to turn away patients, tighten their belts, and close outpatient clinics, people are no longer drawn to the All-America city as a welcoming community. They realize that cities and states everywhere are having to make incredibly tough choices because Trump does not support New Deal type public works infrastructure programs, the exception being for the creation of “company cities” which billionaires such as Musk, Thiel, or Bezos plan that will further class divisions. Will CRMCC have to close its Medically Indigent Services Program? Will there by extra money for medical research and laboratories? Will we be fixing potholes this year, funding supportive housing, or redirecting resources to food banks so children do not have to go to bed hungry? Which small grocery stores reliant on SNAP will be forced to layoff workers or shutter their doors? How will schools manage the reductions in Medicaid and Department of Education grants that provide Special Education students with learning resources, teaching staff, nurse, and individualized care? How does Trumpcare help the poor “lift themselves up by their own bootstraps” when households must choose between tuition, childcare, eldercare, food, medical, energy, utility, housing, or automobile? How does eliminating internet access assistance help welfare recipients find work?

Preliminary Analysis Indicates Poor Will Suffer, Rich Will Grow Richer

The Republicans, those not opting to attend the session remotely, repeatedly assert that the bill is the biggest benefit for the working class, the best deal ever cut for them, and that the Democrats are merely engaging in scaremongering, when the research on effects speak for themselves. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in a letter to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (OR), Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ), and Representative Richard E. Neal (MA) with regard to H.R. 1:

“CBO estimates that the combined effects of those policies—two under current law and the others under H.R. 1—would increase the number of people without health insurance by 16.0 million in 2034. Of that number, about 5.1 million stems from policies incorporated into CBO’s baseline projections and 10.9 million from provisions that would be enacted under H.R. 1.”

A critical rule change proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) headed by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the expiration of the health insurance rebate for enrolling in the Affordable Care Act for people whose modified gross income is between 100 to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The expanded premium tax credit is set to expire at the end of 2025. According to the CBO, proposed changes by the HHS will make enrollment more challenging by creating more burden of proof for eligibility, out-of-pocket costs, and limiting enrollment periods. However the bulk of people becoming uninsured will stem from the new policy for semi-annual recertification for Medicaid including requirements for work-related activities, including stringent federal enforcement.

“CBO estimates that about 18.5 million people would be subject to the requirement each year, once implemented fully in all states, although some would qualify for an exemption. In 2034, federal Medicaid coverage would decrease by 5.2 million people. Few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage and none would be eligible for the premium tax credit…”

Table 1 “Change in the Number of Uninsured People in 2034” estimates that HHS proposed tax rebate changes would result in a loss of about 5.1 million enrollees. While policies related to H.R. 1 mostly due to new Medicaid work requirements and semi-annual reviews result in an additional 10.9 million disenrolled. Furthermore it may not be easy for people disenrolled to re-enroll if a new battery of medical examination and procedural evaluations are required, or if the enrollee cannot complete their paperwork independently. Thus, if anything, these estimates may be on the conservative or low-ball side.

In addition, according to Section 10008 of H.R. 1, the eligibility work requirement has increased from age 59 to age 65, where all able-bodied adults without dependents will be required to meet work requirement under Section 10002 of H.R. 1. In fact according to the USDA Food and Nutrition website, able-bodied adults either must actively be looking for work, work, or be enrolled in an Employment and Training (E&T) Program that “assists program participants in gaining the skills, training or work experience needed to move towards—and into—employment.”

However according to Democrat legislators, the Trump administration is actively looking to defund E&T programs, citing them as just part of more “waste, fraud, and abuse.” In fact, the most devastating part of H.R. 1 is that gains in greening the economy through the Obama-Biden Administration’s sustainable, efficient, conservative, alternative energy practices such as encouraging energy audits, energy-assistance, energy-rebate programs, retrofitting homes, or installing solar panels will be scrapped. This will also create a new glut of unemployed workers from the closure of such businesses and industries, now that they are no longer federally mandated. These rescissions are listed in “Title IV—Energy and Commerce” in H.R. 1, and also in “Title XI—-Committee on Ways and Means, The One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” Subtitle C—-Make America Win Again. There is no more federal incentive for clean vehicle; energy efficient home; clean electricity; clean fuel; carbon capture; or reducing air pollution, in general. Where will those workers go but to the unemployment line, where they will have a difficult time obtaining SNAP or Medicaid?

In another letter (May 20, 2025) in response to questions by Representative Brendan Boyle (PA-02), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08) about the Distributional Effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the CBO estimates that the federal deficit would increase by approximately $4 trillion dollars by 2034; meanwhile there will be net losses of approximately $700 Billion to the Medicaid program, $300 Billion less in federal spending for SNAP, but only approximately $80 Billion in State compensatory growth in response to SNAP and Medicaid reductions.

In other words, in all likelihood, the states will not be able to keep up with transfer of federal responsibility for these programs to the states for covering the difference in SNAP and Medicaid spending. The reductions would trickle down and household resources “would primarily be affected by decreases in federal spending on benefits provided through Medicaid and SNAP.” The net result over time is depicted in a figure showing that the poor will suffer a net decrease in household resources of 4%, while the rich gain 4% in household resources.

This describes a widening gap between rich and poor of about 8% in household resources by 2030, where there are millions of people trapped in the lowest decile of income.

“CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP. By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe. The distributional effects vary throughout the 10-year projection period as different components of the legislation are phased in and out.”

The Figure “Change in Household Resources as a Percentage of Income Under Current Law for the Lowest and Highest Income Deciles, Selected Years” is just the tip of the iceberg describing what may come about. According to Social Security expert analyst Dr. Ed Weir, eventually everything is also going to cost more, while emergency rooms will be overcrowded due to delayed health care. What is worse is that with the GOP in lockstep with Project 2025, the plan by Office of Management and Budget Chief Russ Vought is to continue to balance the growth in the national debt by gutting the social safety net, with the prize being defunding Social Security and Medicare.

Yet according to Chapter 6 of the Trump Campaign Bulletin, “2024 GOP Platform, Make America Great Again!“, Trump promises to “Protect Seniors.” Under “Our Commitment” Trump promises:

“President Trump has made absolutely clear that he will not cut one penny from Medicare or Social Security. American Citizens work hard their whole lives, contributing to Social Security and Medicare. These programs are promises to our Seniors, ensuring they can live their golden years with dignity. Republicans will protect these vital programs and ensure Economic Stability. We will work with our Great Seniors, in order to allow them to be active and healthy. We commit to safeguarding the future of our Seniors and all American families.”

President Trump literally promises to: “1. Strengthen Social Security, 2. Strengthen Medicare, 3. Support Active and Healthy Living, 4. Protect Care at Home for the Elderly, 5. Protect Economic Foundations for Supporting Seniors.” Yet all H.R. 1 does is undermine Social Security and Medicare because it threatens to raise the costs of living for the working poor, increases the numbers and amount of suffering for the very low-income, and raises the costs in healthcare due to economic strains on the health care system. It will decrease the level of care due to stress for caregivers and hospital staff. In H.R. 1 there is no caregiver tax credit as promised in the campaign bulletin, and the term “caregiver” is not used even once! Only the Senate Amendment mentions “caregiver” and it is only used to conditionally exempt “caregivers” from the Medicaid Community Engagement Compliance in Section 71121.

The empty promises of President Trump and his elitist-supporting ideologues have been laid bare. It is as if they had borrowed from Progressive Liberal platform platitudes to convince seniors that, as promised in Chapter 6 of the Trump Campaign Bulletin, item 3:

“Republicans will support increased focus on Chronic Disease Prevention and management, Long-Term Care, and Benefit Flexibility. We will expand access to Primary Care and support Policies that help Seniors remain in their homes and maintain Financial Security.” 

How can this take place when more rural hospitals and nursing homes will be forced to close? How can this happen if cost-of-living increases cannot keep pace with inflation due to tradewars and economic and societal stress from gutting the social safety net? What will happen in the next several years as Project 2025 proceeds, and the GOP and President Trump believe that they can get away with bigger, additional wealth transfers from the poor to the rich?

Image from Democrats-Budget.House.gov