This caricature of Donald Trump was adapted by DonkeyHotey from a Creative Commons-licensed photo from Michael Vadon’s Flickr photostream.
By Michael Meeropol / The Rag Blog / April 3, 2025
The following is an expanded version of a commentary delivered over WAMC-FM (Northeast Public Radio) on March 7, 2025 by Michael Meeropol, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Western New England University. It has been adapted for The Rag Blog by the author.
Listen to Thorne Dreyer’s Rag Radio interview with Michael Meeropol, Friday, April 4, 2025, on KOOP, 91.7 FM in Austin or stream it at KOOP.org. Post-broadcast, listen to the podcast of this show anytime, here.
My question for today is — “How does a Republican Congressman sell a cut in Medicaid as NO CUTS TO MEDICAID?” Answer — by hiding it in a big number without specification.
In a first and very revealing vote, every Republican but one in the House, (including eleven who are the most vulnerable to a Democratic challenge in 2026), voted to move a budget “blueprint” forward.
This is a first step in the process of crafting a budget. It provides broad numbers on spending and taxing. The next phase is to fill them in with what is called a Budget Reconciliation Bill. (This importance of reconciliation is that it is not subject to Senate filibuster and therefore could pass the Senate with only Republican votes.).
It is true that in the blueprint that just passed, there is nothing specific that promises cuts to Medicaid. That is because there is nothing specific that promises cuts to ANYTHING. So, members of Congress especially those who are vulnerable like my Congressman Mike Lawler (NY – 17) are out there making it clear they are “protecting Medicaid”. But they are lying of course.
Here is how US News and World Report described the sleight of hand
“ …. the blueprint’s single biggest line item calls for the Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion or more in cuts over a decade – a reduction virtually impossible without making significant cuts to Medicaid.”
The budget blueprint also seems to be promising cuts to the SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) program: “It also calls for the Agriculture Committee to find $230 billion in savings through 2034 – again, nearly unthinkable without targeting SNAP.”
[For details see https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2025-02-26/the-house-passed-a-budget-blueprint-what-happens-now]
This is where I get very frustrated with reporters. There have been countless examples of Republicans — I’ll use my Congressman Mike Lawler of the NY 17 th district as an example — saying with straight faces “there is nothing in this bill that mentions Medicaid.” Why don’t the reporters ask people like Lawler — WHERE ELSE in the part of the budget controlled by the Energy and Commerce Committee will you find $880 billion in cuts? Where else in the part of the budget controlled by the Agriculture Committee can they find the proscribed cuts than in SNAP?
For one angry response to Lawler’s dissembling on Medicaid see https://michaelianblack.substack.com/p/congressman-mike-lawler-lied-to-my
[For more details on why it is impossible to cut $880 billion without cutting deeply into Medicaid see https://www.factcheck.org/2025/03/the-war-of-words-over-medicaid-cuts/.
After I wrote the sentence above complaining about the reporters, I did find one example where Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was challenged on where in the $880 billion there could be cuts if Medicaid were off the table: https://www.rawstory.com/mike-johnson-2671227077/?u=5ac14f57c867ede606a642e7ab55ee98a3a275cf2b656f1998b0780ee7e13cd0&utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feb.27.2025_12.39pm]
Interestingly, Trump has shut the door to cuts to the more popular Medicare and Social Security programs — and this despite the “real” President Elon Musk repeating the old canard the Social Security is a “ponzi scheme.” [It’s not! Even though it was published in 1999, I think the best book to answer right-wing attacks on Social Security is Social Security, the Phony Crisis by Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot.]
