Earlier today, Senate Republicans passed a version of the GOP's massive budget-reconciliation legislation, dubbed The Big Beautiful Bill in homage to President Trump.
The bill represents Trump's signature legislative achievement for this term in office. It adds or subtracts funding for many areas of public life: taxation, border policy and immigration, military spending, Medicaid, food assistance, clean energy programs, the debt ceiling, and more.
The House had passed its own version of the bill on May 22nd. The two chambers will now need to cooperate to come up with a reconciled piece of legislation for President Trump to sign. It's quite possible that Republicans won't meet the July 4th artificial deadline imposed by their leadership, but in my view it is a virtual certainty that they will meet somewhere in the middle, and President Trump will sign whatever they come up with.
In America Magazine, in an article written before today's passage of the Senate version, and the all-night session that preceded it, Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe, NM characterizes the legislation as a "moral failure". The article's headline: "Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ betrays the poor. The church must oppose it."
Here is some of Wester's analysis:
...the legislation is anything but beautiful, at least from the perspective of Catholic teaching. It basically steals from the poor to give to the rich, and it will leave millions of low-income U.S. citizens struggling to survive. It also funds a mass deportation campaign that will separate immigrant families and profoundly harm children, including U.S.-citizen children...
It is estimated that the legislation would cut $700 billion over 10 years in Medicaid spending, leaving 7.6 million American families without health-care coverage. It also reduces spending for food assistance to the nation’s poorest by an estimated $300 billion over 10 years, adversely impacting 40 million low-income persons, including 16 million children. As many as 5.4 million per year could lose food assistance from the cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill transfers wealth from citizens with the lowest tenth of income to those with the highest tenth of income, the largest transfer in U.S. history.
On immigration, it appropriates $75 billion for a mass deportation campaign, which includes funding for detention centers and a substantial increase in border and interior enforcement personnel. It allows these agents to remove people based on the suspicionof illegal activity, without judicial review. And it increases fees for such benefits as temporary protected status (T.P.S.), humanitarian parole and work permits for asylum applicants, leaving these important protection mechanisms out of the reach of qualifying families.
To make matters worse, the bill undermines other important church teachings, such as the need for a progressive tax structure based on the ability to pay and measures to combat climate change, as it raises taxes on the working poor and repeals clean energy tax credits.
Wester then addresses what the church's role should be regarding the legislative process for this bill:
There is another factor for the church to consider in this debate, as well—its moral authority. Unless the church stands up for the poor and marginalized of the nation, consistent with Catholic teaching, its moral voice will be diminished in the future. There are times when the church needs to forsake political considerations and take a stand, even if that effort is unsuccessful. This is one of those times.
There is time to defeat this legislation, or at least to change it substantially, as the U.S. Senate has yet to consider it. But this will not happen unless the church states unequivocally its opposition to the House bill and any similar Senate version. An approach which opposes parts of the legislation but indicates support for other provisions—as was done when the bill was before the House—gives legislators the cover to vote for the bill. There are other ways to support the few parts of the bill worthy of it. They should not be achieved on the backs of the poorest of society.
Wester has an ability to speak in a prophetic voice that I lack. I'm more likely to adopt the approach he criticizes, saying provision A is good but provisions X, Y and Z are bad. In addition, I'm less comfortable predicting the future impact of new legislation than he apparently is.
The provision in the bill that worries me the most is the mountain of money ($45 billion, I believe I heard on PBS yesterday) appropriated to arrest, detain and deport immigrants. In my view, privatizing the detainment of arrested immigrants is a bad and dangerous idea; and the US's implementation of it surely is resulting in the violation of human rights, perhaps on a large scale. Now these programs will have the funding to mulitiply. Entrepreneurial government contractors are poised to make a fortune by finding a new way to make immigrants "disappear" into unaccountable private facilities. This is not the America I signed up for.
https://religionnews.com/2025/06/27/in-rare-move-catholic-leaders-issue-dueling-letters-criticizing-gop-budget-bill/
ReplyDeleteEssentially the Catholic bishops have ceased to walk together. The president of the conference has failed to keep them together. You would think that with an American Pope that this would not happen. But it is happening.
Jack, thanks for that link. I wasn't aware of the two letters. I think RNS's characterization of them as "dueling letters" is a bit misleading. The letter signed by Wester and some other "Francis bishops" is not a Catholic bishops' letter per se; it is an interfaith letter that some Catholic bishops signed on to - as did some Episcopalian bishops and leaders from other faith traditions.
DeleteIt's of interest to me that my archbishop, Cardinal Cupich, usually counted as one of the "Francis bishops", apparently didn't sign the interfaith letter. Not sure why.
I think the bishops come across as pretty univocal across the two letters in their fears about the immigration program and their dismay about the expansion of deportations, Medicaid cuts, the food assistance cuts and the cuts to green energy programs. I suspect they're also united in their approving Planned Parenthood's loss of funding for at least a year, as well as the reinforcing of parental rights in education.
DeleteThey are dueling letters in the sense that they take different approaches politically as is well articulated by Wester:
Delete"There is time to defeat this legislation, or at least to change it substantially, as the U.S. Senate has yet to consider it. But this will not happen unless the church states unequivocally its opposition to the House bill and any similar Senate version. An approach which opposes parts of the legislation but indicates support for other provisions—as was done when the bill was before the House—gives legislators the cover to vote for the bill. There are other ways to support the few parts of the bill worthy of it. They should not be achieved on the backs of the poorest of society."
In other words, Wester disagrees with the approach taken by the Catholic bishops because it allows politicians to justify why they voted for the bill.
The "Francis bishops" like McElroy care more about Medicaid and food programs than about the issues which have been front and center for the US bishops conference in recent decades: abortion, conscience rights for medical providers, and now parental rights in public school education. The "Francis bishops" would rather see the entire legislative package die than see incremental progress on abortion and parental rights.
DeleteIn a sense, both strategies are losers: neither approach is going to come to pass. The bishops conference wanted a bill that kept all the good stuff and killed off all the bad stuff. The "Francis bishops" wanted to kill off the entire bill because it viewed the bad stuff as a poison pill. Neither is going to happen. The result will be a law that contains (by the bishops' lights) both the good and the bad.
Yeah well the poison pill is still going to be there. ICE gets more money than anything. And since about 40% of the births in the US are covered by Medicaid, cuts to that are likely to mean more abortions.
Delete"And since about 40% of the births in the US are covered by Medicaid, cuts to that are likely to mean more abortions."
DeleteIt will be interesting to see if that actually comes to pass. Obamacare's big expansion of Medicaid has correlated with the end of the decades-long decline in the abortion rate and the more recent increase in the abortion rate. Whether that is because Medicaid services in many states cover abortions, isn't clear to me.
I think economics do have something to do with increases or decreases in the abortion rate. One would expect the rate to increase when times get harder. People losing medical coverage is going to make times harder, at least for the people affected.
DeleteI don't think the vice president's expectation that the people who lose Medicaid coverage are going to pick up employer based health insurance is realistic, since a lot of those people are employed, and a lot of employers don't provide health insurance as a benefit. Remains to be seen if the subsidies for Affordable Care Act coverage are going to go away. High deductibles and higher premiums would be an obstacle for people trying to get ACA policies if the subsidies are gone.
I suppose lots of things affect abortion rates. I'd be surprised if the biggest one wasn't the attitude of the mother's extended family. Many of my girlfriends are Catholic grandmas who have a host of grandkids born in and out of wedlock, and who embrace a lot of step-grands as well.
DeleteJean you make a good point about the attitude of extended family. I see that here. Of course the grandmas and aunties would prefer that the young moms get married before they have babies. But they are realists, and you deal with the situations you have rather than the ones you wish you had.
DeleteTwo Grammas in my circle were happy kids did not marry the baby's other parent, circumstances being what they are. Nonetheless, the baby mammas and baby daddies are included in the family along with the legit spouses and a raft of step-sibs. I think the biggest problem is with a flakey ex-wife.
DeleteThe bishops helped build MAGA with demands for criminalization of abortion, which they got in some states, and railing against gay marriage and LGBT people. Most white Catholics voted for Trump.
ReplyDeleteYou can't call for the erosion of rights against people you don't like and then shed tears when rights in general get rolled over.
Unfortunately you are right that they helped build MAGA by prioritizing abortion as the single most important issue. Single issue people are only pro life if they close one eye and squint the other so hard that they only see one thing, and have no peripheral vision. All the life issues, including the social safety net, and the dignity of all human beings, are linked together. You can't ignore any of it without hurting all of it.
DeleteAmen.
Delete$45B to arrest and detain immigrants while removing aid from Americans born here. How does this make us a better country? This is the most perverted orgy of race hatred one can imagine. Now the Court says that there’s no birthright citizenship because the 14th Amendment was only meant for the babies of slave. Corporate personhood was also based on the 14th Amendment but I doubt that’s going to be invalidated. I guess the Dreamers are totally out of luck. My grandparents never became citizens but my parents were because they were born here. Maybe it’s a good thing I’m learning Polish. Who knows where this will go. Will it be retroactive?
ReplyDeleteThe line is that all these dirty furriners are the ones getting free welfare, eating our dogs, and taking black jobs. Joni Ernst said it; they're all coming off the rolls and we won't need big welfare expenditures once the immigrants are gone.
DeleteALL of this was predictable. It's what Americans want. It's why they re-elected Trump and gave him a majority in both houses of Congress.
I'm only surprised he didn't throw in the camps for vagrants he was jabbering about. Guarded enclosures outside cities with mandatory drug testing and a ban on booze and cigs.
My dad used to have an expression "They fall in line like trained pigs". He wasn't necessarily talking about politicians, it was about putting up with something outrageous to get what you want. Every single legislator who voted for this bill got (or hoped to get) something they wanted more than the common good.
DeleteFwiw - I received an email last night from a local pro-life group, ecstatic about the bill because Planned Parenthood is defunded.
ReplyDeleteThat provision, financially, is very small potatoes compared to the overall spending: < $1 billion. Yet I think it's likely that provision spells the end of Republican control of the House.
DeleteYippee! More clinics that provide low-cost Pap smears, birth control, mammogram assistance, and confidential referrals for women in domestic violence situations defunded. Hyde already prevents them from doing abortions with Federal $$. Do any of these crusaders talk about replacing the services they're gleefully helping to burn down? The RTL stuff I get sure does not.
DeleteWhat I don't get, is where are all the fiscal hawks? In no way can this bill be considered a debt reduction measure.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul and Susan Collins seem to have rejected the bill on excessive spending grounds. At least that's how I read Collins's attempt to reduce rich-people giveaways. Maybe they will join Elon's 3rd party.
DeleteThe fiscal hawks all chickened out, as they always do. With Trump, the choice always is: vote for what I want, or get primaried (and also get death threats from the goon-and-thug wing of my base).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOff topic: Please pray for the repose of the soul of Bishop Carl Mengeling, Bishop emeritus of the Diocese of Lansing, who died yesterday. He was 94. He worked closely with the Cristo Rey parish in his long retirement. He responded quickly and effectively to parish concerns, particularly during the sex abuse scandals. His voter guides were always thoughtful and helpful. I honestly never knew which party he favored. A pastor in the best sense. Thank you, Lord, for his life.
ReplyDeleteMay perpetual light shine upon him! Sounds like he was a good guy.
DeleteFor a conservative point of view: what follows is in the August print edition of National Review. It is from the section of the magazine called The Week - I believe we should understand this to be the views of the magazine's editors (and shouldn't be confused with my views!):
ReplyDelete"Opponents of Republicans' Medicaid palns say that they will reduce enrollment in the program. They're correct, and that's a good thing. Medicaid enrollment is currently too high, for several reasons. The first, and most troubling no matter what you think of the efficacy of the program, is that millions of people who are not eligible for it because their incomes are too high are currently enrolled. The second is is that some states have allowed illegal immigrants to enroll. Everyone should be on board with kicking those two groups of people off the program. The third reason, where opinions differ, is that Obamacare expanded Medicaid to cover able-bodied, working-age people, and the federal government pays states a higher reimbursement rate to cover them than it does to cover the children and disabled people that Medicaid is supposed to be for. That has led to the current situation, where the national Medicaid enrollmetn rate is double the poverty rate, and disabled people are on waiting lists while able-bodied people are covered. Mediacaid is also the No. 1 program for improver payments. Getting Medicaid under control means spending less money on it and covering fewer people, and Republicans should not be ashamed of doing so."
Does NR provide any evidence that millions of people are on Medicaid whose incomes exceed the threshold? I haven’t read anything about this. If they did, could you provide the URL to the information?
DeleteMany disabled and elderly, babies and children, have someone caring for them full- time, without pay. If they are poor enough to qualify (no pay for family caregivers) - will they also be kicked out? There are millions of able bodied, unpaid family caregivers who have to stop working to care for family members. At the cost of care, few people can afford it.
If people are kicked off Medicare, including undocumented immigrants waiting for asylum hearings but without access to corporate sponsored insurance ( as lousy as it is), then they will probably resort to filling up ERs. I have seen this happen - people waiting for hours for a strep test, a flu test and a prescription, or other ordinary medical need.
Does NR remember that it was the radical commie lib, Reagan, who had legislation passed requiring that people who go to ERs without insurance or money be treated there without charge? Does NR realize that the most common reason people end up in bankruptcy court is that their jobs don’t provide insurance to many employees ( Walmart is notorious for this - eligibility for health benefits requires a minimum number of hours each week - usually 30 - and the retail employees are only given part- time hours up to 29/ week), they can’t afford to buy insurance (the working poor) and can’t pay medical bills?
The situation is more complicated than conservatives acknowledge.
"improver payments" should read "improper payments". "Medicaid also is the No. 1 program for improper payments."
DeleteA further comment on the conservative nature of National Review's views: if you've been following the saga of the Big Beautiful Bill, you know that the GOP leadership has been struggling to get it passed in both houses of Congress, because Republicans in this Trump era are not of one accord. There are something like four different factions of Republicans that have emerged:
Delete1. MAGA heads who simply say "how high?" whenever Trump says "jump"
2. Reaganite conservatives who are concerned about the budget deficit and additional borrowing
3. Swing-district moderate conservatives who win their districts by small margins and are vulnerable to losing their next election (which could easily result in the GOP losing its House majority)
4. Conservatives from blue-state wealthy districts whose primary goal for this legislation has been to raise the ceiling on deductions that can be claimed on federal taxes for paying state income taxes
National Review has always been aligned with the 2nd faction - the Reaganites. Editorially, the magazine has been trying to walk the same tightrope as every other conservative organization in the Trump era: how to remain true to their pre-Trump conservative principles without alienating Trump voters who presumably constitute a big part of their subscriber base.
Trump himself (and therefore the first group enumerated above) don't feel strongly about reducing Medicaid, and more generally, have little or no interest in managing the government's debt. They're populists; whatever the people want, they want. Trump himself was tweeting out, 'Let's not cut too much' or something similar this past weekend. It is the Reaganites, including National Review - and now apparently Elon Musk and his willingness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political candidates - who are behind the cuts to entitlements.
Anne - you raise some good questions. FYI, that National Review item appeared in the print edition, so there are no "links" to click on; I retyped it out of the print magazine. I'll try to find some time to find the online version and see if there are any links. I also hadn't heard about millions of unqualified people being enrolled in Medicaid. One would think that would have been a juicy target for DOGE. But I don't think the National Review editors would make this stuff up. Let me see what I can find.
DeleteAs Medicaid funding will be reduced, someone somewhere is going to have to make the hard decisions as to who gets impacted. As it will be the Trump Administration making those decisions, I suppose we should expect them to take take the cruelest possible approach. A rational approach would be to start with those whose incomes don't qualify them for the program (presumably there are other programs, like Obamacare, for them).
It seems cruel, too, to kick undocumented immigrants out of the program. As you note, I think the alternative for them is to show up at emergency rooms. I'm not on board.
So it seems that many of the people they kick off Medicaid, such as caregivers, immigrants waiting for asylum hearings and able bodied people who work in a low paying job which don't have benefits, are going to end up filling up emergency rooms, and the hospitals will be stuck with the bill. Because the BBB cuts off funding for hospitals too.
DeleteAnd some of the people who got kicked off will just not seek care at all, with possibly fatal consequences. I have my own "There but for the grace of God, go I" moment. If I had no coverage, would I have gone to the doctor for a minor symptom which turned out to be cancer? And since I was on Medicare, surgery got fast-forwarded in time for a likely cure.
The argument against kicking illegals off Medicare is that you then have hospitals treating them without compensation, which strains hospitals. You also have a population of untreated/unvaxxed individuals out there infecting everybody else. (To some extent, the inability of our health care system to bear some of these costs is symptomatic of a just plain bad care system, but that's a bigger issue.)
DeleteI get that unfettered immigration is a problem and a strain on our national resources. But a more coherent and effective immigration policy than "build a wall" and booby trapping the Rio Grande with razor wire would be good.
And let's not forget that there WAS a bipartisan immigration bill before Trump told Mitch McConnell that he needed that issue to campaign on, and the bill never came to fruition.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry, peeing in the pool again, as it were. My bad.
DeleteJim, you have far more faith in NR editors than I do. Don’t forget - they pretty much forced David French to leave. He’s a true conservative, so he was also anti- trump. The rest of them climbed the trump train without any scruples.
DeleteNR’s statement about millions on Medicaid being ineligible due to income statement is misleading because it doesn’t provide nuance or the details. Google search AI ( which is not infrequently wrong or misleading) says this
Delete“ Some research indicates that millions of people enrolled in Medicaid may have incomes exceeding the eligibility threshold, particularly in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Specifically:
One analysis estimated that in 2017, between 2.23 million and 3.25 million enrollees in Medicaid expansion states had incomes above the eligibility threshold.
Important Considerations:
Medicaid Eligibility: Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that provides health coverage to low-income populations, with eligibility determined based on factors such as income, household size, disability, and family status.
Medicaid Expansion: The ACA allowed states to expand Medicaid to cover adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, leading to increased enrollment and potential for ineligibility errors in this population.
As part of the summer speaker program at Notre Dame when I was working on my master's degree, we had a presentation from a faculty theology faculty member who was from Germany.
ReplyDeleteHe said that many, perhaps most German Catholics of their day saw Hitler as being on their side, of being for families, the Fatherland, and even the Church. As for the bishops, Hitler had effectively neutralized them and the Vatican. The concordat with the Vatican gave the Pope what he wanted, complete control over appointments of bishops in Germany (where formally some were nominated locally) and funding for Catholic education. The bishops and the Vatican allowed Hitler to dismantle Catholic Action so it could not oppose him.
The same thing is happening now with Trump. He is giving the bishops and many Catholics what they want in return for not opposing him on other things. Many bishops and priests are encouraging Catholics to vote for him and Republicans. Very few of the bishops and clergy are discouraging Catholics from voting for Trump and the Republicans.
Throughout the history of the Church there have been many saints (bishops, priests, religious and laity) who have opposed the widespread corruption of both the state and the church. Most of them have been persecuted; many of them died as martyrs. However, many popes, bishops, religious and laity were more a part of the corruption than part of witness against it.
So maybe Wester will be remembered in history as one of the few witnesses against the corruption of our Church and State. Certainly, Cardinal Dolan and many other bishops will not be remembered that way.
"Many bishops and priests are encouraging Catholics to vote for him and Republicans. Very few of the bishops and clergy are discouraging Catholics from voting for Trump and the Republicans."
DeleteI am not saying that isn't so; but I've never experienced it. At least in my diocese, we're forbidden from campaigning from the pulpit. For that matter, whenever I dare to touch on any public issue from the pulpit, such as immigration, there are people in the congregation who start screaming at me and/or the pastor that I'm injecting politics into mass.
Jack, the church sold its soul in the 30s. It has done so again with trump. There are very few true followers of Christ in christian churches, including the RCC.
DeleteJim, it seems that for some reason you don’t see what most of us see. I don’t know why. The bishops and priests mostly dont “campaign” from the pulpit. It’s all code - the teach that no good good Catholic can vote for candidates who are pro- choice ( not pro- abortion, but in favor of allowing women who aren’t convinced that an embryo the size of a blueberry is a “ person”the right to follow their own religious beliefs. That eliminates everyone but MAGA, and trump, who Dolan praised in the most effusive terms from St Patrick’s Cathedral.
Hi Anne - it's possible I live in a bubble.
DeleteThe bishops and clergy talk in generalities; it's the Catholic voter groups that amplify the pro Trump stuff. Folks like Brian Burch, head of CatholicVote who is now Trump's ambassador to the Vatican.
DeleteEvery parish is its own bubble; every diocese is its own bubble. Every parish knows the limitations that are imposed upon it by being part of a diocese. Every bishop knows that remaining in communion with the rest of bishops and with the Pope has its limitations.
DeleteWe do not walk lockstep from the top down as some claim, it is more like we walk lockstep from the bottom up taking some directions from the diocese, national, and universal churches.
In analogy with academia, most Catholics are locals focused upon the parish, then the diocese. They think of themselves much as members of academia think in terms of professors, courses, extracurriculars, their fellow students, and alumni.
However, some Catholics are cosmopolitans. Like professors who identify with their colleagues around the country and the world, we get our Catholic identify from the many institutions that we have walked with. In my case that includes my parents and family, Jesuit institutions, Benedictine institutions, Merton and the Trappists, Dorthy Day and the Catholic Worker movement, the Ohio Mental Health System, various parishes across the country, Commonweal magazine and its various communities.
Of course, it is possible to be both a cosmopolitan and a local at the same time. I did that well in the Lake County Mental Health System since almost everything that I did locally was presented at some national conference of some profession associations. Most of us here are probably both cosmopolitan and local "Catholics" to varying degrees.
More about the various ways of being "Catholic" in a few days. Pew has recently published an excellent article on that.
I agree with what Jean said that it is the Catholic voter groups that amplify the pro Republican, pro Trump stuff. Which is weird, because when I was a kid the church seemed pro Democrat, especially when Kennedy was elected.
DeleteKatherine, you are right - in the 1960s the church seemed to lean to the Democrats. But the two parties now bear little resemblance to the parties ( and what they stood for) of 50-60 years ago. The southern strategy was designed by the GOP to appeal to southern Democrats who were segregationists, to their racist feelings against civil rights for African Americans. The democrats drove them into the arms of the GOP. It was the Dems who pushed for racial equality in the south, even though it had been the Republicans who fought to keep the union whole in the face of secessionists who were fighting to maintain slavery.. The GOP saw an opportunity in the 60s and 70 s. The names of the political parties haven’t changed but the parties have. The southern states are pretty much as anti- civil rights for minorities now as they were then and are solidly MAGA red.
DeleteAnne's quick historical overview is right on. It's hard to believe now that in the era just before, during and just after the Civil War, many Republicans had the adjective "Radical" precede their name - and they were radical in wishing to weed out slavery, root and branch. They fought, not only with cannons and rifles during the Civil War, but at the ballot box and in Washington and state legislatures, for Black sufferage and equality. And Democrats were the cynical race-card-players. Over time, the Democrats' strategy won out. I think it stayed that way until Franklin Roosevelt transformed the Democratic coalition. Then Reagan transformed the Republican coalition. Then Obama transformed the Democratic coalition again, and now Trump has transformed the Republican coalition again. Democrats are now whiter, richer and more educated than they've been, perhaps since Jefferson's time. Republicans, formerly the country club party, now are more downscale and gradually becoming more diverse racially than they've been since Reconstruction.
DeleteI think both parties are now a weird mix-up. The Republicans did become more downscale and diverse, but they also have the tech bros like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk ( even though Musk is now, to quote Taylor Swift, is "never ever ever" getting back together with Trump again. The Steve Bannon types want us to be like Hungary. The Tech bros want us to be like Singapore. The Steven Millers want us to be like Russia, apparently.
DeleteThe Democrats have the Bernie Sanders and AOCs who are social democrats (neither are actually what I would call pure socialist). And the Mark Kellys who are more centrist, an the Joe Manchins who are right leaning, more like Republicans. And Pramilla Jaypals and the Melanie Stansburys and Jasmine Crocketts.
I would say that the Republicans are more alike than they are different, and the Democrats are more different than they are alike.
The GOP is the billionaire party. The tax cuts in the new bill go almost entirely to those in the top 1% or higher and to corporations. If recent history is a guide, the corporations will use the tax savings to buy back their own stock, boosting the price, and enriching the top executives even more since they all are given huge stock bonuses every year. The middle class will see little improvement in their financial wellbeing. If inflation kicks in, which is likely given the tariff chaos, the middle and working class folk will have zero net benefit from the tax cuts - or maybe negative. The bottom demographic probably will be hurt the most - they don’t pay much in taxes but they do depend on the safety nets, as limited as they are, to survive. They will be hit hard by the Medicaid cuts. If tariffs continue to lead to layoffs, it will be even worse.
DeleteThe Democrats are the real friends of workers and the poor, but the GOP are better at lying with a straight face (along with crude vulgarity that appeals to many of their voters that makes them laugh) and Dems got too caught up in the losing side of the culture war issues. It doesn’t mean the Dems are wrong about them, but it turns out that a whole lot of Americans the haven’t dropped their prejudices about POC, non- standard sexual identities, and non-Christians as much as was thought - until trump came along and said it’s ok to hate “ the other”. Then the truth of our American character came out - we were not as much changed from the 1950s and earlier eras of history as I had naively believed, and as millions of others had believed. Trump is evil, Milner maybe more so, Laura Loomis definitely so, most of his advisors are full of hate. Trump recognized the darkness that still infests this country and had been hidden as being a powerful force he could use if he said it’s ok to be hateful of those who don’t have the same complexion, religion, cultural heritage, sexuality that you have. Because that means they aren’t “ real” Americans and they don’t belong here.
But they have convinced the working class that they are their friends.
Yes, weird mix-up, tho the marriage of Dixiecrats and Yankee libs under LBJ was pretty weird. The Republicans fixed that, as Anne mentioned, with their Southern Strategy.
DeleteRight now, the Republican party seems united mostly by hatred of anything "foreign"--not white, not English-speaking, not made in America, not Christian (preferably Protestant), and not consumer-minded. It's what Country Club exclusivity morphs into when NASCAR fans get hold of it. Put them people in a alligator swamp, eye haw!
Democrats seem mostly united by their loyalty to "programs" ushered in with the New Deal/Great Society, but they've lost labor, and labor has lost the union clout that forced capital, instead of government programs, to provide adequate wages and pensions.
I hope that maybe Trumpism will help our nation see why our laws and ideals are vital to our freedom. But I fear that Americans have acclimated to economic struggle and mind-numbing entertainment. The fact that we haven't seen rioting over Trump's OBBB and recent Supreme Court rulings isn't necessarily a good thing ...
Happy 4th. I guess.
One more for Jim, from Dana Milbank in the WaPo
Delete“ Texas Republican Keith Self, a putative deficit hawk affiliated with the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, was categorical in his opposition to the Senate-passed “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which will add about $4 trillion to the federal debt. “The Senate’s version of the BBB is morally and fiscally bankrupt,” he proclaimed on X at 6:50 p.m. on Wednesday. Three hours later, he posted again, saying he had voted to block the House from taking up the Senate legislation. “House leadership wants to cram this broken bill down our throats by rushing it to the floor,” he wrote. “Ultimately, this is an issue of morality,” he added, saying the House had a “rare opportunity” to “begin restoring fiscal sanity” by rejecting the Senate bill.
Then Donald Trump began threatening him and the other holdouts. “What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT’S COSTING YOU VOTES,” the president posted on Truth Social after midnight Thursday. In another post, he wrote, “FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE. RIDICULOUS!!!” Self, swallowing his “morality” and his dignity, went onto the floor and changed his vote to “yes” to advance the Senate bill — without securing a single change to it. So did every single member of the Freedom Caucus. That feeble wheeze you heard on Capitol Hill this week was the last breath of small-government conservatism. No one should be surprised that the so-called deficit hawks folded in the nation’s hour of need. Their unwillingness to stand up for their principles has become a standing joke. Members of the House Freedom Caucus squawk with outrage whenever House GOP leaders or Senate Republicans come up with a fiscally reckless plan, they swear they will vote “no” — and then they quietly retreat to their cages, usually after receiving some offer of future fiscal restraint that never materializes.”
"usually after receiving some offer of future fiscal restraint that never materializes."
DeleteI read somewhere that this is what happened to get the fiscal hawks over the line: promises were made about what will be done in the next budget reconciliation bill (I believe two are permitted each year, or maybe it's each Congress), and what Trump will do via executive orders.
Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't take Donald Trump's word for what will happen at some indeterminate time in the future. But I'm sure it is hard for these 'rebels', having to face down the President, the Speaker, their own constituents and a conservative media on which many of them depend. So at the end of the day, very few profiles in courage.
Unrelated, NCR says that the Pope's hometown is going to buy his childhood home. It was recently purchased (2024) for 60,000 remodeled and put up for sale at 250,000. The town is out of money, evidently due in part to corruption.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/pope-leos-hometown-buy-his-childhood-home-hoping-revive-chicago-area-village
Be sure to check out the realty firm's pictures of the remodeled inside. They look more like a modern church, probably far removed from the decor and religiosity during the fifty years the family lived there. Wonder how the town is going to handle that?
https://www.prusa.com/auctions/pope-leo-xivs-childhood-home-chicago-dolton-il/
Appears to be at least one good Samaritan in town: A recent post on the village's Facebook account showed workers repairing the house's roof and celebrated the home for "bringing new energy and attention to our village."
Gino Ferrari, president of Windy City Construction Group, said he offered the full roof replacement for free to the current owner, saying he "wanted to make sure this roof lasts a long time." In front of the home, the company put up a sign with an image of Pope Leo XIV and the words "Pope Leo's childhood home" and "A roof for the pope's roots."
Interesting story, Jack! Value of the home went up 4x since Leo was installed. That's America for ya!
DeleteThe inside has been staged by a realtor. New floors and walls knocked down for an open floor plan. Revamped fireplace.
I bet when the Prevosts lived there, there was a crucifix on the wall, pictures of JFK and the Pope, and those plastic covers on the davenport. Cuz that's what every Catholic family home looked like when I was growing up.
Interesting. My devout Catholic Irish American mom and her mom did not have those items displayed. My mother had a small picture of Father Serra in her bedroom. My grandmother had no religious items displayed as I recall. No photo of JFK - my mom had voted for FDR until the Catholic Church scared her into the GOP camp because of the godless communists. She thought the Dems were like that. She voted for Nixon. Her mother was furious with her. I still remember the arguments.
DeleteMy mother was also a snob - so no clear plastic slipcovers on any of the furniture - including the couch (never heard the word davenport growing up in California. That piece of furniture was usually called a “couch” in California, but some called it a “sofa”). We had a Protestant neighbor with the plastic slipcovers and my mom did not hide her dislike of them. None of the other neighbors - mostly Jewish - had them either. My mother also distanced herself (and us) from the shanty Irish. She never used that term, or the other, but apparently we were “lace curtain” Irish. She had a college degree (rare for her generation, born in 1910), as did her brothers. Her college sorority sisters were her closest friends throughout her life. She was bitter though, because my dad was a financial failure and couldn’t provide her with the country club lifestyle of her friends. Eventually he couldn’t provide at all, even in the minimal way he did when I was growing up, and she lost our home in the divorce to pay off his debts. I was a freshman in college then. That’s when she got a job at the UCLA Conference center in our lake town, and lived in a room there. Totally broke and starting from scratch at 55. I had no official home then, spending school breaks and summers with friends and the sister who had moved to DC.
My mom had aunts who were nuns, teachers and librarians, an uncle who was a priest/college professor, another who was a medical doctor. Her father was a civil engineer, but without a degree. He headed west as a young man without college. I think he worked his way up as a laborer on big infrastructure construction projects, then a supervisor, eventually supervising mining projects at silver mines in Nevada, to owning his own construction company in LA. He built single family houses (including in the area of LA that made headlines decades later - called Watts) and roads - several of the famous major roads in LA were dirt roads that his company paved for the first time ever. He built some of the civic buildings in downtown LA. He was a successful businessman, but a tyrannical husband and father apparently. He died before I was born. From what I know of him, I’m glad I never knew him. I never knew any of my father’s German family except for one of his sisters ( she never married - he was the youngest of nine) and one of his cousins a little bit. I don’t think they had crucifixes or photos of Popes in their homes, but don’t know. I have no idea if they were very religious, but they were Catholic. About 25 years ago some family members in Germany found our family in the US. It’s a rare name and we learned that we were all descended from the same ancestor in Steinheim Germany in the 18th century. My grandfather and two of his brothers had moved to the US in the late 19th century and these cousins knew this - many times removed looked up our family name when they visited different parts of the US. They came every year, usually to the southwest and Rockies. They eventually found my nephew in Arizona, who led them to my brother there . When we met them while they were taking their annual vacation in Arizona (we went there to meet them) one of the first things they mentioned was that our German family were Catholics, not Protestants, as far back as we could trace the family tree. So I guess it was a big deal.
Guess you had to grow up in the working class Midwest to rate plastic on your davenports and Pope pictures in your house. One of my girlfriends from the UP had Italian grandparents. Gramma kept a picture of Pope John 23 in her kitchen long after he died, cleaned it every Sunday with Windex.
DeleteMost of the religious images in my house were mine. The exception was a brass cross inherited from my German grandmother. They included a statue of Mary and one of Joseph with the infant Jesus. In catechism class we were encouraged to build home altars for the Marian year (1954).
DeleteMy home altar was built into a recess in my bedroom. It was hidden by a curtain. After I went to novitiate my mother dismantled it and completely remodeled the room as her bedroom. (Dad was a restless sleeper) She said that otherwise it always felt that I had died.
My mother was a Better Home and Garden fan so she remodeled our house to be modern. She had longed to paint a set of shelves black to display her milk glass collection. As soon as she saw one in the magazine, she did it.
Living in our home did feel like living in a church, but a very modern church. My present home with cathedral ceilings also feels like a church. It is dominated by a tapestry of Our Lady of Guadelupe which hangs above the fireplace. The fireplace has been replaced a large computer screen where we celebrate Mass and the Hours. There is no TV. We do listen to classical music on public radio. I read and write; Betty does art. A very contemplative setting.
Jack, your home life throughout your life was/ is so different than mine. There was nothing contemplative in my childhood home with five kids. Even less so raising three active, athletic sons and a large golden retriever. I once told a friend that God has a perverse sense of humor if God really “ wills” the lives we end up living. As an introvert who loves classical music, loves to read, and has no interest in sports, I once imagined sitting in front of the fireplace reading with my husband while music played softly in the background. Then the wild child first of three sons was born.
DeleteMy mom didn't have plastic on the davenport. And yes, we called it that. She had a faux early American Ethan Allen couch with red upholstery that five kids wore out. Then she had it re-upholstered in a 70s style cream colored background with orange and briwn autumn leaves. I have a cute picture of the 8 grandchildren who were born at the time (later on there were 12) sitting on that couch at a July 4th get together. Miss those days.
DeleteMy paternal grandmother was a minimalist for home decor, maybe that was from her French heritage? She did have a Sacred Heart picture, several Mary statues, and a crucifix. And a holy water thingy.with an angel holding a little bowl. I have that one now. Nana liked furniture with a modern look. When we got married she gave us the oak mission style buffet cabinet she had been given as a wedding present in 1927. Her comment, "you can have this old thing until you can afford something better." I still have "that old thing" along with a bunch of other old things.
People in NJ refer to the beach as the shore. What do mid-westerners call the sandy land bordering oceans ( or the Great Lakes) - beaches? Many north of DC refer to soft drinks as “sodas”, but here (and in California) soft drinks of whatever kind are usually referred to generically as coke - as in “anyone want to get a coke?” Our English friends were pained by our references to our front and back yards - they corrected us and told us that when in England even the non-vegetable, no flowers areas, including the lawn, should be called our front and back gardens, lest someone picture a dirt area outside a barn or garage. AI has an opinion on “ Davenport” that supports my theory - it became a generic term based on a particular company’s product. ( like Coke)
DeleteDavenport (Sofa):
A vintage term for a large, upholstered sofa, sometimes a sleeper sofa, especially in the Midwest and Northeast.
The term gained popularity around 1900 when the A.H. Davenport Co. produced a popular sofa style.
No religious doodads in our Unitarian house growing up. My grandparents gave Mom and Dad a silver wall cross for their 25th anniversary. Dad used to say, "Every time I see that cross, I think of our wedding and say, Jesus Christ!" They only hung it out if Gramma and Grampa visited.
DeleteAfter my folks died, I found several Christian books for little boys, ca 1935 given to Dad by his step-grandparents. Remarkable only in that it did not look like they had ever been opened. Mint condition. Ditto his school copy of "Ivanhoe."
I forgot about the Sallman Head of Christ picture that my folks had in their bedroom. I have one too, though it isn't the same one. One of the nuns back home gave it to me for playing the organ at Mass.
DeleteIt's a "beach" and you drink "pop" there. "Soda" is what you put in a cocktail. Raber used to talk about the guys in the Navy asking, "What flavor coke you want?" Ontario Canadians call the davenport a "chesterfield."
DeleteI grew up in Jean's neck of the woods. For us it was beaches, pop and davenports, too. But in Chicago, davenports are couches. The only people around here who call them sofas are the furniture sales outfits.
DeleteGrowing up, we had crucifixes in all the bedrooms, and there was (still is) hanging on the wall of the hallway some sort of papal blessing or some such - I think it may have been on the occasion of my parents' wedding. The pope is Pius XII.
Re: Pope Leo's house and similarly touristy enterprises: I suppose it's inevitable. I haven't fastened on to the pope-as-celebrity yet. I'm still trying to get to know him. I don't think he's as interesting a person as Jorge Bergoglio was (that always was going to be a touch act to follow). But his head and heart certainly seem to be in the right place.
Well, Catholics love shrines. Since it sounds like the town is teetering on the edge of financial ruin but are buying the house in hopes of attracting tourists, I do hope the house is a tourist draw.
DeleteI remember photos of Pius XII on the church and parochial school walls. He looked grim and not someone I wanted to know. I think of JPII as a celebrity pope - more so than Francis. He was ( by papal standards) young when elected, considered to be handsome, as athletic and he didn’t stay in the Vatican - he started jetting to foreign countries everywhere in the world, drawing huge, cheering crowds. Definitely a celebrity.
Waiting for me in my inbox when I woke up this morning was a letter from the Social Security Administration. Here it is in full:
ReplyDelete"Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors"
"The Social Security Administration (SSA) is celebrating the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.
"The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation's economy.
"“This is a historic step forward for America’s seniors,” said Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano. “For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans. By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned."
"The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned.
"Social Security remains committed to providing timely, accurate information to the public and will continue working closely with federal partners to ensure beneficiaries understand how this legislation may affect them."
A friend of mine also received it (perhaps all of us did?) and put a "topper" on it saying, "I'm seeing some indications this isn't actually true." He worked for the federal government at one time; he stated that SSA always had a reputation for bipartisan even-handedness. He finds it regrettable that SSA is now taking this cheerleading stance.
We got it too. I suppose every adult American got one. Maybe every American. BTW, he did not eliminate all taxes on SS earnings - it’s another old person credit that is a function of income. It vanishes completely at some point for those with more retirement income than just SS.
DeleteFine print says message paid for with tax dollars. There used to be a rule that govt workers could not promote political agendas. My mail carrier is also our mayor. She is very careful not to engage in politicking on the federal clock, has cards with her mayoral email and office hours she gives out. Imo, this veers into partisan propaganda. Just more evidence the rules are gone.
DeleteWe haven't received ours yet. We've had things show up trying to sell us Advantage plans, etc. which didn't come from the government, even though they appeared to. I don't trust anything I get anymore. Nobody is going to do us any favors.
DeleteAt Anne's request farther up the comments, I went out to the National Review website to find the electronic version of the item I had pasted in which the editors provided some justifications for reducing Medicaid payments, among the claim that "millions of people who are not eligible for it because their incomes are too high are currently enrolled". Anne had asked me to check if there are any links to further information on this claim, which neither of us had seen previously. The answer is no: no links were provided.
ReplyDeleteSo then I went to Google to look around for it. I didn't find anything (but didn't have much time to look), but in the course of looking, I stumbled across a Wall Street Journal article on a related provision of the bill: the imposition of work requirements on a subset of Medicaid recipients. The article is here, although I suppose it would be behind a paywall for non-subscribers: https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/medicaid-cuts-work-requirements-republican-bill-d14188cc
I have to say, it's not the content I would have expected from the Wall Street Journal. It's not pro-"workfare" at all. The subhead summarizes the article: "Policy analysts expect millions of Americans to lose coverage because of cumbersome paperwork, bureaucratic hurdles and noncompliance".
From the article:
"An estimated 18.5 million Medicaid recipients will have to start proving that they spend at least 80 hours a month working, receiving job training, attending school or performing community service, according to a CBO analysis of an earlier version of the provision passed by the House in May.
"That estimate is likely to go up under the Senate’s revised version, which decreases the number of parents exempted from the requirements. Senate Republicans narrowly passed the latest iteration of the spending bill on Tuesday.
"The requirements, as detailed in the Senate, would apply to adults ages 19 to 64 who are healthy and without dependent children under the age of 13 or who don’t qualify for other exemptions.
"People already enrolled in Medicaid would have to prove compliance for at least one to three months twice a year. But new Medicaid applicants would have to prove that they meet the work requirements for at least one to three months before enrolling. States have the option to implement more frequent eligibility checks. Work requirements could go into effect by 2027, though states can request a delay up until 2028.
"Ten years from now, Medicaid rolls would decrease by 5.2 million people, and less than half a million of those people would get coverage through their jobs or elsewhere, according to the CBO’s estimates of the House bill. Over a decade, work requirements could save an estimated $325.8 billion, the CBO estimated. "
The authors then look at the experience of two states, Arkansas and Georgia, that recently imposed their own workfare requirements on Medicaid recipients. (Medicaid is a joint federal and state benefit, so states have some leeway to define the benefits and impose requirements within their jurisdictions.) Here is their description of Arkansas' program:
" Arkansas introduced [work requirements] in 2018, requiring Medicaid beneficiaries ages 30 to 49 to work or complete another qualifying activity for 80 hours a month or meet exemption criteria. It cost some $26 million to implement and state officials took pains to inform the public—sending letters, making calls and educating healthcare providers of the rule.
"Despite those efforts, some 18,000 people lost Medicaid coverage within a few short months, mostly because they weren’t aware of the new rule or didn’t understand how to get verified. The requirements didn’t increase employment, research shows.
"A federal judge pulled the plug on Arkansas’ work-requirements program in 2019, citing concerns about its impact on coverage. "
The authors report that Georgia's program continues today, but the impact has been negligible.
Politico also had an interesting article. Two things struck me. First, 70 million ( out of 330 million) ;are poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid? This level of poverty for so many working Americans implies that the busy economy of recent years and low unemployment rate must be primarily the low wage service economy - while corporate salaries and profits skyrocketed. The article also says that only Medicaid, Medicare and Social security were large enough to help fund the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. So Medicaid became the target. What about defense? The US defense budget is larger than that of the next ten countries combined ( including China and Russia) ,
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/03/why-republicans-cant-quit-medicaid-cuts-00439295
SS tax letter - from today’s WaPo
ReplyDeletee Social Security Administration sent an email soon after saying that the landmark legislation “delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans” and includes “a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples.” But policy experts say the bill does not ax federal income taxes on Social Security benefits — though it does reduce some people’s taxes through the new deduction, which is set to expire after 2028. “There is no provision in the budget bill that directly ‘eliminates’ or even reduces taxes on Social Security benefits,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
As I understand it, the bill gives SS recipients an income tax deduction of up to $6K on SS income. It sounds good, but it only benefits seniors with enough SS to qualify for taxes to begin with. It probably isn't going to help the 40 percent of seniors who rely solely or largely on SS income and pay little to no tax. The details seem kinda fuzzy.
DeleteMany seniors need property tax breaks more than income tax breaks, but that's a state issue. In Michigan, you get behind in your property taxes by more than two years, you lose a home you bought, paid for, and maintained for decades over taxes that may amount to no more than a few thousand bucks. Then you're thrown on the dole for 4F housing at state expense.
Or you sell your house cuz you can't afford taxes and upkeep and move to senior housing, but when the $$ from home sale is gone for rent payments (usually within a year or two), you have to go on the dole.
Govt is gonna pay no matter what, and would probably save admin and bureaucracy costs to just knock down property tax payments a bit for hard-up cases.
Senior accommodation and poverty are bad now, and they'll get worse as time goes by, though Boomers dying off will help. (And MAGA seems bent on getting them dead sooner than later by decreasing Medicare and letting Advantage carriers jack up rates and reduce benefits.)
As wages and benefits erode, young people can't save much for retirement because companies no longer contribute to pensions or health care insurance. They'll be broke when they die without being able to pass on that little inheritance windfall everybody wants to leave their kids.
I have read that many trump voters on Medicaid don’t even realize that they may lose it because the plan goes by a different name in their state - like Medical instead of Medicare. They interviewed a couple of trump voters who said that they would be fine because they were on “ name of state plan”. They were shocked to learn it is Medicaid and that they may lose coverage.
DeleteIt's a convoluted and confusing as is our entire inefficient and inadequate health insurance system. Make employers pay more for worker health care benefits, then streamline care for elderly, disabled, and children into a single agency to reduce administrative costs. Seems like that would appeal to libs and conservatives as a compromise. Oh, wait, we don't compromise any more ...
Delete