President Donald Trump and Congress have until August or September to reach agreement and act on the debt limit, the Congressional Budget Office forecast Wednesday. (Stock photo/Getty Images Plus)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and Congress have until August or September to reach agreement and act on the debt limit, the Congressional Budget Office forecast Wednesday.
Otherwise the United States would default for the first time in history, likely leading to a global financial crisis.
The nonpartisan CBO projection is similar to an estimate published earlier this week by the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank, which expects the X-date will occur between mid-July and early October.
The previous debt limit suspension expired in January, but the Treasury Department has been able to keep paying all the government’s bills through accounting maneuvers called extraordinary measures. When those run out, the country would hit the X-date and a default would begin.
The four-page CBO report says the default range “is uncertain” because how much money the federal government brings in as well as how much it spends at a given time is difficult to track.
“If the government’s borrowing needs are significantly greater than CBO projects, the Treasury’s resources could be exhausted in late May or sometime in June, before tax payments due in mid-June are received or before additional extraordinary measures become available on June 30,” the report states. “Conversely, if borrowing needs fall short of the amounts in CBO’s projections, the extraordinary measures will permit the Treasury to continue financing government activities longer than expected.”
GOP bill on tap
Republicans in Congress are hoping to approve a massive bill in the months ahead that would extend the 2017 tax law, creating $4.5 trillion in new deficits. The package is also supposed to appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars to the Department of Defense and border security initiatives.
GOP lawmakers hope to pay for some of those increases in the deficit through spending cuts, but are far from agreement on how best to do that.
The debt limit allows the Treasury Department to borrow money to pay all of the country’s bills in full and on time. The federal government must borrow money to pay for spending that Congress has approved that isn’t funded by taxes or other fees.
During the last full fiscal year, that imbalance between revenue and spending, also called the deficit, totalled $1.8 trillion. Over decades, annual deficits have added up to a $36.2 trillion national debt.
Congress failing to raise or suspend the debt limit before the default date would limit the Treasury Department to spending only the cash it had on hand, a scenario with much broader implications than a partial government shutdown.
A default could lead the federal government to delay or simply never make payments on thousands of federal accounts, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, troop pay, federal employee salaries and much more.
The Treasury Department writes on its website that not raising the debt limit by a specific dollar amount or suspending the debt limit through a future date “would have catastrophic economic consequences.”
A Government Accountability Office report lists off several negative repercussions of a default, including that it could trigger runs on banks and money market funds, that it would likely reduce lending to households and businesses, that it would lead to a substantial downgrade to the country’s sovereign credit rating and that it would likely lead to a significant and potentially long-lasting recession.
Treasury projection in May
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent plans to send his department’s default date projection to Congress in May, though he wrote in a March letter that lawmakers should get to work sooner rather than later.
“The period of time that cash and extraordinary measures may last is subject to considerable uncertainty due to a variety of factors, including the unpredictability of tax receipts and the normal changes of forecasting the payments and receipts of the U.S. government months into the future,” Bessent wrote. “We expect to provide an update during the first half of May, after the majority of receipts from the April income tax filing season have been received.”
Bessent then urged lawmakers “to act promptly to protect the full faith and credit of the United States.”
Republican leaders in Congress and the Trump administration have just a few more months to decide how they want to handle this year’s debt limit debate.
House Republicans included a proposal in their budget resolution to raise the debt limit by $4 trillion later this year, when GOP lawmakers draft the bill to extend the 2017 tax cuts. But the Senate has yet to agree to that blueprint.
Republicans raising the debt limit through the complicated budget reconciliation process would require support from nearly every GOP lawmaker in Congress, since the party holds a paper-thin majority in the House and just 53 seats in the Senate.
Nearly two years ago, when Congress sent the last debt limit bill to the White House, 71 House Republicans and 31 GOP senators voted against approval.
The other option is for Republicans and Democrats to negotiate a bipartisan agreement on the debt limit that can get the support of at least 60 senators to move past the legislative filibuster.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) speaks at a WisPolitics event. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) criticized much of Gov. Tony Evers’ budget proposal on Tuesday, saying Republicans wouldn’t get behind the spending increases and taxation proposals. He said Republican lawmakers are starting the process of coming up with their own proposals, including for a broad tax cut plan.
Evers’ 2025-27 state budget proposal dedicates $4 billion to K-12 and higher education, cuts nearly $2 billion in taxes and raises income taxes for the state’s wealthiest residents. Evers said during a Wisconsin Counties Association conference on Tuesday that his proposal was “realistic” and that he hopes the Legislature will agree.
Vos said the plan was unrealistic, however, because it would increase state spending by about 20% and included plans to raise taxes. He also complained Evers presented his plans without speaking with lawmakers first.
Wisconsin has an estimated budget surplus of about $4 billion. Democrats are seeking greater investments in the state’s public services while Republicans want to limit state spending.
Vos told the audience at the WisPolitics event people are thinking about the budget surplus the wrong way.
“People believe we have this huge surplus, which is true on one-time money, but we have very little money for the government to be able to expand or increase funding for programs,” Vos said.
Wants broad tax cuts
Vos said the last state budget was “really disappointing” because Republicans met Evers’ goals by increasing spending on education, but Evers vetoed most of Republicans’ tax cut proposals. In the upcoming session, Republicans will seek to focus on using the budget surplus for cutting taxes.
Evers proposed an array of tax cuts in his budget including eliminating taxes on cash tips, sales taxes on electricity and gas for Wisconsin homes and on over-the-counter medications. Vos compared tax cuts to “chocolate cake,” saying they are all good. However, he said his caucus will likely look at doing broader tax cuts and that he wants cuts that “people can actually feel.”
“My preference is something that is ongoing and meaningful to families,” Vos said.
Vos said that lawmakers will work to pass a tax cut bill package before the end of the budget process.
“Hopefully that’ll get signed, but if not, unfortunately, the budget will probably have to wait until we can find consensus on that tax cut,” Vos told reporters after the event.
Evers also proposed a new tax bracket with a marginal rate of 9.8% for the state’s wealthiest residents — those making above $1 million for single filers and married joint filers. The current top tax bracket has a 7.65% rate and applies to single filers making $315,310 and joint filers making $420,420.
Vos said Republicans would not support increasing taxes.
Continued no on Medicaid expansion (even postpartum)
Evers for his fourth budget in a row proposed that Wisconsin join the 40 other states in the country that have taken the federal Medicaid expansion, which ensures coverage for people making up to 138% of the federal poverty line. One difference in this budget cycle, however, is that the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers are seeking to cut Medicaid funding in order to help pay for tax cuts. The new reality, Vos said, appears to validate his ongoing opposition to accepting the federal Medicaid expansion.
“Thank goodness we never expanded Medicaid,” Vos said.
Vos said he would prefer block grants from the federal government, and that it would be better for Wisconsin to get 90% of the money from the federal government without “strings attached” than to get 100% of the money and have to follow federal guidelines for how to spend it.
Vos was also critical of expanding postpartum Medicaid to cover new mothers for the first year after giving birth, casting doubt on a Republican-backed bill that supports Wisconsin joining the 48 other states that have done this. Currently, Wisconsin only covers up to 60 days after birth for eligible mothers.
Evers included the extension in his budget proposal and a Republican-authored bill that would extend coverage has 23 Senate cosponsors and 67 Assembly cosponsors.
Despite the widespread bipartisan support for extending postpartum Medicaid, Vos said he was not the only person in his caucus who opposes expanding coverage. He said it doesn’t make sense to expand Medicaid coverage because those with incomes up to 100% of the federal poverty line can still keep coverage after the 60 days and those who could lose coverage could seek coverage through Obamacare.
“I am not the only person in the Legislature who is opposed to it. Many Republicans are opposed to expanding welfare, it’s just they are more than happy to let me stand in front of the arrows,” Vos said.
Calls language changes ‘dystopian’
Vos also critiqued changes to the state budget proposed by Evers that would update language to be gender neutral.
The proposal would change certain words like “father” to “parent” and “husband” to “spouse.” Another section that is about artificial insemination would change “the husband of the mother” to “the spouse of the inseminated person.”
Republicans have locked on the latter phrase to claim that Evers is trying to erase mothers and fathers.
Evers told reporters Monday that the changes were made to ensure with “legal certainty that moms are able to get the care they need,” noting that same sex couples could have been excluded from coverage under the old language. He accused Republicans of lying about the issue.
“I didn’t know that Republicans were against IVF, but apparently they are because that is what it’s about,” Evers said.
Vos said the change was “dystopian” and said the changes don’t fix any issue and Evers was just coming up with an explanation. He later told reporters that the language made the state a “national embarrassment.”
Prison reform
Vos also complained about Evers’ process for coming up with a plan to reform the state’s prisons, saying he should have included lawmakers in developing it.
The proposed plan, which would cost over $500 million, would make wide changes to many of the state’s facilities including transitioning Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake youth correctional facilities into adult facilities, updating Waupun Correctional Institution, the state’s oldest prison, and eventually closing Green Bay Correctional Institution.
Vos said it’s known that lawmakers have had an interest in the issue and questioned why they weren’t consulted in developing the plan.
“He chose not to do that because he has one way of operating, which is his way or the highway. Those of us that have some interest in corrections reform will get together and come up with our own package and present it to the governor and say, ‘Here it is,’” Vos said.
DPI and Supreme Court elections
Vos also weighed in on Wisconsin’s upcoming spring elections.
State Superintendent Jill Underly, the Democratic-backed candidate, is running for a second term in office against education consultant Brittany Kinser, the Republican-backed candidate.
Vos said that Kinser is “the best candidate” because she supports school choice and appears willing to work with the Legislature. He added that he isn’t sure whether he has ever met with Underly. He also criticized Underly for changes to the evaluation of Wisconsin’s standardized test scores.
He described the recent February primary as “low profile” and said that with a “different electorate” at polls in April, Kinser likely has a chance to win.
The higher profile spring election is for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The technically nonpartisan race pits Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate against Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate.
Vos said he thinks that the race will be about the candidates, but it is “possible” that the race could be a referendum on Trump. He noted that Democrats are seeking to turn out voters who agree with them and billionaire Elon Musk and Trump are trying to bring out Republicans in the race. A group tied to Musk canceled a social media ad this week that featured a photo of the wrong Susan Crawford.
Republican state Rep. Jordan Redman speaks on the Idaho House floor in March 2024. This month, Redman reintroduced a bill that would repeal Medicaid expansion next year unless a set of strict conditions are met. Legislators in other states are also considering shrinking or eliminating Medicaid expansion. (Photo by Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun)
Republican lawmakers in several states have Medicaid expansion in their crosshairs, energized by President Donald Trump’s return to the White House and a GOP-controlled Congress set on reducing spending on the public health insurance program for low-income people.
As the feds consider cuts to Medicaid, some states are already moving to end or shrink their expanded Medicaid programs.
Legislators in Idaho have introduced a bill that would repeal voter-approved expansion, while Republicans in Montana are considering allowing their expanded program to expire. Some South Dakota lawmakers want to ask voters to let the state end expansion if federal aid declines. Nine other states already have trigger laws that will end their expansion programs if Congress cuts federal funding.
Meanwhile, discussions have stalled in non-expansion states such as Alabama, as lawmakers wait to see what the Trump administration will do.
Many conservatives argue that Medicaid expansion has created a heavy financial burden for states and that reliance on so much federal funding is risky. They argue that expansion shifts resources away from more vulnerable groups, such as children and the disabled, to low-income adults who could potentially get jobs.
In South Dakota, where voters approved Medicaid expansion in 2022 by a constitutional amendment, Republican state Sen. Casey Crabtree wants to bring expansion before voters again with a trigger measure. He told Stateline via text that his proposed amendment to the state constitution “empowers voters to maintain financial accountability, ensuring that if federal funding drops below the agreed 90%, the legislature can responsibly assess the state’s financial capacity and the impact on taxpayers while still honoring the will of the people.”
I have received hundreds of emails from constituents that have said, ‘please do not repeal.’ I have received zero asking me to repeal, which I think is very telling.
– Idaho Republican state Rep. Lori McCann
But even some Republicans are uneasy about what repealing expansion would mean for their constituents.
“Quite honestly, I have received hundreds of emails from constituents that have said, ‘please do not repeal.’ I have received zero asking me to repeal, which I think is very telling,” said Idaho state Rep. Lori McCann, a Republican who represents a swing district in the northern part of the state.
McCann said she’s interested in reining in Medicaid costs, but skeptical about a full expansion repeal. More than 89,000 Idahoans could lose their coverage if the state repeals its expansion, according to the latest numbers from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. McCann said she learned this month that only a fraction of those would qualify to buy discounted insurance on the state exchange.
“For the rest, what’s going to happen to them? They will utilize the emergency rooms again, and we’ll be back to the same problems we had prior to the Medicaid expansion.”
Before President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, traditional Medicaid insurance was mainly available to children and their caregivers, people with disabilities and pregnant women. But under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion program, states can extend coverage to adults making up to 138% of the federal poverty level — about $21,000 a year for a single person — and the federal government will cover 90% of the costs for those newly eligible enrollees. States kick in the rest.
All but 10 states, most of them controlled by Republicans, have taken the deal. Nationwide, more than 21 million people with low incomes get their health insurance because of expanded Medicaid eligibility.
(In Wisconsin, the state Legislature’s Republican majority has rejected repeated efforts since 2019 by Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic lawmakers to expand Medicaid, known as BadgerCare, in the state.)
But the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress are seriously considering options for shrinking Medicaid as they look for ways to pay for extending tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term in office. Proposals include reducing the federal 90% funding match, which could shift a greater chunk of Medicaid spending onto states, and greenlighting extra hurdles such as requiring enrollees to work in order to qualify for coverage.
The swirl of uncertainty at the federal level is supercharging efforts by Republican state lawmakers who have long opposed the program, despite its popularity.
In a public address last month, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a Republican, announced the state would ask the federal government for permission to institute work requirements for adults to qualify for coverage.
“If you want to receive free health care — paid for by your fellow taxpayer — able-bodied, working-age adults have to work, go to school, volunteer or be home to take care of their kids” she said.
Sanders argued coverage without such requirements discourages people from working and being self-sufficient.
But advocates and experts point to a wide body of research that links Medicaid expansion to lower uninsured rates, better health care outcomes and economic benefits for states, hospitals and other providers.
Without expansion, they say, many of the working poor who don’t have employer-sponsored insurance exist in a coverage gap: They don’t earn enough to afford private insurance, and yet they earn too much to qualify for traditional Medicaid. Expansion bridges that gap.
And, advocates argue, yanking health insurance from tens of thousands of people in a state would have far-reaching consequences for families, hospitals and state finances.
“It would be absolutely disastrous for everybody at all levels of the state,” said Idaho Democratic state Rep. Ilana Rubel, the House minority leader, who is on the committee considering bills that could repeal the state’s Medicaid expansion.
“We would go right back to people being unable to seek preventative care until it’s too late, back to loss of life, loss of health and financial catastrophe.”
A coordinated national effort
Many of the attempts to repeal Medicaid expansion in states such as Idaho and Montana are coordinated by national conservative-backed groups, said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.
Joan Alker, Georgetown University
“It’s important to understand this is part of a well-orchestrated and financed effort to undermine Medicaid generally, especially for adults,” said Alker, who is also a research professor at Georgetown’s McCourt School of Public Policy, where her work focuses on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Conservative-backed think tanks, including the Foundation for Government Accountability and the Paragon Health Institute, have testified before several state legislatures against Medicaid expansion and have worked to thwart state ballot initiatives.
In Montana, where Medicaid expansion is set to expire this year unless the legislature and governor opt to renew it, representatives from the foundation and the institute urged state lawmakers to scrap Medicaid expansion. Montana Republican state Rep. Jane Gillette, a dentist, appeared in a video produced by the foundation advocating for the state to allow its expansion to expire.
Neither organization responded to interview requests.
In Idaho last year, state Rep. Jordan Redman, a Republican, ceded most of his time introducing his Medicaid bill to a representative from the Foundation for Government Accountability. That bill later failed to advance out of committee after intense public pushback.
‘Repeal in sheep’s clothing’
This month, Redman revived his Medicaid bill. It would repeal Medicaid expansion next year if the federal government does not maintain the 90% match and the state does not receive federal permission to enact work requirements and a host of other new restrictions, including a 50,000 cap on expansion enrollment — just over half of its current enrollment — and a three-year limit on receiving benefits.
“This safeguard approach will strengthen Idaho’s Medicaid program while maintaining flexibility,” Redman told the Idaho House Health & Welfare Committee earlier this month. “If the federal government or state agencies fail to meet the program’s safeguards, this legislation ensures those Medicaid dollars will be redirected to serve the truly needy.” Redman did not respond to an interview request from Stateline.
Rubel, the Democratic leader, described Redman’s bill as “Medicaid repeal in sheep’s clothing.”
“It’s a type of trigger law with incredibly unlikely-to-be-met conditions,” she said. “Basically, they’re saying unless you can fly a unicorn to the moon and back, Medicaid expansion will be repealed.”
Idaho voters approved Medicaid expansion by ballot measure in 2018, with nearly 61% in favor. The law took effect in 2020.
Conservative lawmakers in Idaho have tried without success to repeal Medicaid expansion ever since, including introducing another repeal bill last month. But this could be conservatives’ year. Before the session, Idaho’s Republican House speaker expanded the committee from 13 seats to 15. It’s a move that some state Democrats say was an effort to ram through Medicaid expansion repeal. At least eight committee members have pledged support for the Idaho Republican Party’s platform, which calls for repeal of Medicaid expansion.
It’s important to understand this is part of a well-orchestrated and financed effort to undermine Medicaid generally, especially for adults.
– Joan Alker, Georgetown University Center for Children and Families
Medicaid is popular nationally, in expansion and non-expansion states. Three-fourths of Americans have a favorable view of Medicaid, according to a January 2025 health tracking poll from KFF, a health research organization. It’s a preference that crosses political boundaries: 63% of Republicans, 81% of independents and 87% of Democrats view it favorably.
Polling in Idaho in 2023 found 75% of voters — including 69% of Republican voters — held a favorable view of Medicaid.
“Citizens should not have to work this hard to get something passed that they want and need so desperately, and then keep imploring legislators not to take it away again,” said Rubel.
Trigger laws
If Congress reduces the 90% federal match rate for Medicaid expansion, more than 3 million adults could immediately lose their health coverage.
That’s because nine states have so-called trigger laws that would automatically end Medicaid expansion if federal funding is cut: Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Three additional states — Iowa, Idaho and New Mexico — would require the government to take cost-saving steps to ease the financial impact of federal cuts.
Alker is skeptical that Congress would be able to get such legislation passed before most state legislative sessions end this spring. But if cuts are made, the impacts could start showing up in 2026.
Regardless of possible cuts at the federal level, states including Arkansas and Idaho are looking at ways to reduce the number of Medicaid-eligible people by instituting work requirements or benefit caps.
States need federal approval to impose such additional conditions on Medicaid eligibility.
The first Trump administration approved work requirements in 13 states, but the courts later struck those down and the Biden administration rejected such requests. States, including Arkansas, are trying again, hoping they’re more likely to get what they want under the new Trump administration.
Redman told Idaho legislators that he expects the Trump administration to grant the waivers that would be needed under his proposed bill.
“I actually spoke to several folks at the new federal administration, and they said they’re looking for waivers that are unique and creative, that they want to grant,” he said.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in non-expansion states have in recent years warmed to the idea of expansion. It was arguably the biggest issue of last year’s legislative session in solidly red Mississippi, and was backed by Republican Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann. Expansion is back on the table this year, though lawmakers have said they won’t consider a plan unless it includes work requirements.
But in Alabama last month, House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter, a Republican, said expansion would no longer be a priority this session because Medicaid was likely to see changes at the federal level.
“I think we are better off seeing what they are going to do,” he told reporters.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
A sign in Madison, Wisconsin touting a municipal well project funding by President Biden's bipartisan infrastructure law. | Photo by Ruth Conniff/Wisconsin Examiner
In the last days of the Biden administration, just before Trump’s triumphant return and swearing-in on the site of the violent Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, I happened across a sign touting federal investment in an infrastructure project on Madison’s east side.
Next to a strip mall, set back from the road and barely visible from busy East Washington Avenue, the sign touted PFAS treatment and upgrades to a municipal well. In large type it declared: “Project Funded by President Joe Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.”
Too little, too late, I thought. The sign, practically hidden on a scruffy corner where few eyes can see it, seemed like a metaphor for the Biden administration’s failed effort to take credit for all the good it did. Through federal investments it paved roads, repaired bridges, shored up the economy and set us on a path to recovery from a global pandemic. By the end of 2024, wages, job growth, employment, even consumer prices that had spiked worldwide after COVID hit, apparently driving voters in this country to elect Trump, are all in good shape. In the third quarter, real GDP hit its highest level of 2024 at 3.1%. Consumer spending was up. Unemployment was 4% nationally and 2.9% in Wisconsin. And everywhere across Wisconsin, federal investments have boosted the economy and improved lives.
As Erik Gunn reports, the Biden administration touted $9.2 billion in federal infrastructure investments in our state, including $1 billion for desperately needed repairs to the Blatnik Bridge connecting Superior to Duluth, Minnesota. There were also hundreds of smaller projects like PFAS remediation in that municipal well on Madison’s east side, which was shut down in 2019 and will be operational again by the summer.
Because of the Biden administration’s efforts, about 300,000 Wisconsin Medicare recipients are saving an average of $475 per year in prescription drug costs, which were capped under the Inflation Reduction Act. And the Department of Education projects that 62,000 Wisconsinites have had over $2.4 billion in student debt canceled thanks to Biden’s student debt relief efforts.
These are just a few of the highlights in a long list of Biden administration accomplishments put out by the Democratic National Committee as the former president bade farewell.
Wisconsin lost 83,500 jobs during Trump’s first term. During Biden’s four years in office, it added 186,800 jobs, as we bounced back from the pandemic. Federal pandemic relief funds allowed Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers to shore up schools, infrastructure, child care and health care in our state, even as Republican legislative leaders tenaciously blocked every effort to use the state’s historic multibillion-dollar surplus to fund any of those priorities.
Now Biden is gone and Trump’s MAGA Republican party has taken over every branch of the federal government. Here in Wisconsin, as across the country, MAGA loyalists are repeating Trump’s counterfactual talking points about how terrible Biden was for the economy and how government must be cut back in order to unleash a new era of American prosperity.
The battle between those who want to harness the power of government to help people and those who would rather drown it in the bathtub has been going on for decades. But the contrast between those ideologies has grown sharper. It’s more important now than ever to recognize what’s at stake.
At the start of the new legislative session, Wisconsin Republicans pledged to ignore Evers’ budget requests and focus exclusively on giving away the state surplus in the form of tax cuts.
“The money that we set aside for that tax cut will not be spent by this Legislature on other wants,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos declared, “no matter how many special interests or tax-and-spend politicians apply pressure to get it out of the treasury’s hands.”
“More than $4 billion of taxpayer money is sitting in a bank account here in Madison, while rising prices impact the families who sent us here to serve them,” Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu concurred. “[Evers] wants to use that money to grow the size of government and send Wisconsin backwards.”
Even a state effort to curb school shootings, through Evers’ office of violence prevention, which he announced after the Abundant Life school shooting in Madison, came in for scathing cynicism from Republican legislative leaders.
“It takes a bureaucrat to think that another government agency is actually going to be effective,” Vos spat, summing up the effort as “a whole bunch of touchy-feely bureaucrats that are going to go around wasting time, wasting money.”
At the federal level, Republicans are singing the same discordant tune.
Scott Bessent, the hedge fund manager Trump nominated to lead the U.S Treasury Department, said during his confirmation hearing that extending Trump’s 2017 tax cut which disproportionately benefited the very wealthy is “the single most important economic issue of the day.”
“If we do not renew and extend, then we will be facing an economic calamity,” Bessent said. When Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock pressed Bessent on whether people who make more than $10 million per year really need a tax cut, Bessent replied, “There is no income level that I don’t think we should continue the [tax cut] as it was.” On the flip side, he endorsed deep cuts to federal spending that benefits less fortunate Americans. “We do not have a revenue problem in the United States of America; we have a spending problem,” Bessent said.
The real economic calamity is shaping up as the incoming Trump administration eyes deep cuts to Medicaid and other cuts that will fall most heavily on poor families. For good measure, Bessent also said he opposes raising the federal minimum wage above $7.25 an hour.
Ever since Ronald Reagan championed trickle-down economics in the 1980s, Republicans have promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy and reducing the size of government will benefit most Americans. But it hasn’t worked out that way. “Cutting taxes for the rich over the past 40-plus years has had a huge impact, leaving less money for public programs that benefit millions of Americans while enriching a tiny percentage of the population,” the Center for Public Integrity reports. Income inequality skyrocketed: “As more money flowed upward, the gap in accumulated wealth widened,” the Center reports. “In 2019, the top 10% of Americans had three times the wealth of everyone else in the country combined.”
It comes down to this: Do you believe it’s better for rich people to get tax cuts and for all of us to pay more to meet basic needs — getting only the health care, education, infrastructure – even firefighting — we can afford to pay for out of pocket? Or do you think we can, as a society, create a world where there is a baseline level of wellbeing, decent education, food, shelter and security for all?
Republicans have been arguing for a long time that government is broken, should be “drowned in the bathtub” — that no one should be required to chip in to support things like public schools or provide decent housing and health care and education to all, including children born into families that can’t afford all these things on their own.
Now we face an aggressive push by the incoming Trump administration and the Wisconsin Leislature’s majority to destroy programs that benefit poor kids, poor families and society as a whole
After years and years of underfunding Wisconsin’s public schools and our once-great university system, Republican legislators now say there’s no point throwing good money after bad, using the struggles of an underfunded system as an excuse for further cuts.
If we can’t remember what it’s like to have a functional society, it’s easy to become cynical and give up on the idea of a healthy public sphere.
Now, as we enter the era of Trump 2.0, it’s important to remember what we had, what we lost, and what we need to fight like hell to hang on to.
Login
