Tag: cuts
Texas Flood Toll: What Happens When Everything Is Boiled Down To Money

Texas Flood Toll: What Happens When Everything Is Boiled Down To Money

I challenge you to go back through your memory of the last five months when coverage of the DOGE cuts to government departments and programs and coverage of the Big Bullshit Bill were in the headlines and see if you can recall the word “consequences.”

I can’t. There was a lot of reporting about 600 people laid off here, a thousand laid off there, and the word “probationary” came up a lot as the Trump administration used it to explain away the people whose jobs were cut. But there wasn’t much debate about the bill in either the House or the Senate. In fact, one story I read last week was about how the nearly 1,000-page monster was pushed through with few committee hearings and little testimony about what was in the bill.

I think I remember reading one story about cuts to the FAA budget around the time of all the delays and cancelled flights at Newark Airport. But the coverage of cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) was focused almost entirely on the number of proposed staff cuts and the “savings” they would produce. The budget cuts sometimes showed in tens of millions of dollars and in other reports appeared as percentages. CBS reported back in February that former NOAA officials said that “current employees had been told to expect budget cuts of 30% and a 50% reduction in staff.”

Finally, when tornados recently swept through Missouri and Tennessee and Kentucky, there were a few reports about local NWS office staffing shortages. The reports were explained away the next day by Caroline Leavitt at the White House saying that the cuts had not affected “overnight” staffing at local offices. Follow up reporting proved her statement about local NWS offices to be a lie, but reports about her lies had become so numerous that the one about the NWS just disappeared down the memory-hole with all her other lies.

The tornado that tore through Kentucky happened back in late May. It killed 19 people, according to the Louisville Courier Journal. Do you remember that number? I didn’t. I had to look it up. There was some aerial footage of the destruction in Laurel and Pulaski Counties. There were a few short bios of some of the people the tornadoes killed. One woman died from carbon monoxide poisoning from a generator she ran when electricity went out during the storms. Another woman was killed by “blunt force trauma,” according to her autopsy. A fireman in London, Kentucky, was found dead atop his wife after the tornado hit their home.

Tornadoes are notoriously difficult to predict. So are flash floods. The NWS puts out warnings and emergency notifications on radio and television broadcasts, and these days there are systems to send out blanket alerts by cell phone. But TV’s and radios don’t work during electrical outages, and cell phone towers are vulnerable to storms, especially tornados. So even if alerts go out, sometimes they cannot be received.

The stories about NWS staffing in Kentucky in May disappeared after the storms had passed and television news stopped putting their drones in the air and reporters went back to interviewing people about inflation and the economy.

Tonight, the Times is reporting that 80 were killed by the flash flood that ripped down the Guadalupe River and its tributaries on the 4th of July. Forty-one people are still missing. Twenty-eight of the victims were children. Now there are new alerts for more flooding in the same areas hit by the flash flood on Friday, including Camp Mystic, the Christian camp located on the banks of the Guadalupe. Twenty-eight victims of the flood have not been identified.

There are some numbers for you. Nineteen killed by tornadoes in May. Eighty killed by a flash flood in July. Donald Trump, who signed an emergency declaration today that will provide FEMA relief to the affected areas and help to pay for the search and rescue efforts, told reporters “FEMA is something we can talk about later,” as he prepared to fly back to Washington D.C. from his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey. Trump has called for the dissolution of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has provided relief to areas hit by hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, and other natural disasters since it was formed in 1978 during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Some $175 billion has been appropriated for FEMA during the last four budgets and continuing resolutions.

And now Donald Trump wants to “wean” states off FEMA and “bring it down to the state level — a little bit like education, we're moving it back to the states.”

That’s what it’s all about. Money. It’s what Trump’s disastrous DOGE adventure was all about. It’s what his Big Bullshit Bill is about, moving money from people who don’t have enough of it to people who have too much of it, and denying it in the form of health care and nutrition to people who need it.

The coverage of what the cancellation of USAID will cause has just begun. We have seen the aid losses in dollars, and now we will see it in the bodies of people who have died from AIDS and Tuberculosis and other preventable diseases, and of course starvation, just as preventable with food aid.

Watch the numbers of people killed in the Texas flooding increase over the next few days. It is hurricane season, so watch for the coverage of those storms and their body counts.

Everybody will forget the numbers in Kentucky and Texas except the families and friends of the dead. The budget “savings” from DOGE and Trump’s odious bill, now signed into law, will be lied away in the White House press room, and two weeks from now, nobody will remember how many died in Texas, the same way nobody remembers how many died in Kentucky. It’s what happens when everything is boiled down to money.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

Ernst's Callous Quip On Medicaid Cuts Inspires A Challenger

Ernst's Callous Quip On Medicaid Cuts Inspires A Challenger

Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa made some callous and disgusting comments about her support for Medicaid cuts during a town hall on May 30, telling constituents that “we all are going to die.”

Now her comments have officially earned her a top Democratic challenger in the 2026 midterm election: JD Scholten, a current state representative for Iowa.

"After her comments over the weekend, I've been thinking about it for a while, but that's when I just said: This is unacceptable and you've gotta jump in," Scholten told The Gazette on Monday. "At the end of the day, though, it's not about her, it's not about me, it's about the people of Iowa deserving better. I don't think there's anything worse that you could do than cut Medicaid, cut SNAP benefits for everyday Iowans just so you can give billionaires bigger tax breaks. That is not Iowa in my mind."

Ernst has not apologized for her comments, but instead she’s doubled down, posting a video over the weekend to make fun of people who condemned her comments.

“I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth. So I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well,” she said in the video.

But Scholten isn’t having her sarcasm, calling out her video as out of touch with what Iowans need.

“We’re taking them off [Medicaid], so billionaires can have a second yacht, so they can have a bigger tax break. We have a system that’s geared towards and favors billionaires and huge multinational corporations, and that’s not working for most of Iowa,” he told Politico.

Though Iowa has shifted right over the past decade—with Trump winning the state in every election since 2016—Ernst, who won in both 2014 and 2020, saw a margin of just 6 points in the 2020 election. That same year, Trump carried the state by 9 points.

And in a “blue wave” year like 2026 is shaping up to be—coupled with Ernst’s latest missteps—the race could be quite competitive.

Scholten overperformed the Republican lean in his district both in 2018 and 2020, according to Split Ticket data. And in 2024, he won his state House district by 6.9%, while Vice President Kamala Harris lost it by 1.6%.

It’s looking like we won’t want to sleep on Iowa in 2026.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

How Trump's 'Big Beautiful' Medicare Cuts May Harm Your Health Care

How Trump's 'Big Beautiful' Medicare Cuts May Harm Your Health Care

I’m no defender of the cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on the American people by the House Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed late Tuesday night. And it’s important to understand that Medicare as well as Medicaid will take a major hit, nearly $500 billion in cuts over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But the political impact will be far less than the cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, reproductive health, environmental and other program contained in the bill. That’s why I’m interrupting my travels this morning to offer this explainer because how defenders of Medicare and Medicaid talk about these Medicare cuts matters.

Under the bill, Medicare will be subjected to sequestration under the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Sequestration is an across-the-board cut in government programs that Congress can impose if a spending bill increases the deficit.

Not all programs are affected. Medicaid, Pell Grants, and Social Security benefits are exempt. Medicare, Head Start, housing assistance, public safety grants, and transportation, among many, are not. In theory, defense spending should also be cut, but it was increased under this bill.

CBO estimates this bill’s limited sequestration will impose a four percent across-the-board cut in Medicare funding. This would include payments to both providers (boo!!) and Medicare Advantage plans sold by insurers (yay!!). Since MA plans now cover over 51 percent of seniors and are paid somewhere between 8-20 percent more on average per beneficiary than traditional Medicare, insurers will get hit with most of the cuts.

Now, if this were targeted just at MA plans along with new requirements on how they spent the money (like raising the mandatory medical loss ratio to 90 percent from 85 percent), and the money saved was targeted to preserve Medicaid as it now is (the $500 billion would cover most of the proposed cuts to that program), I might be cheering this aspect of the bill.

But as it stands, this is how MA plans and providers in traditional Medicare will likely respond to sequestration should it make it into the final bill:

  • They will reduce access. MA insurers will impose more stringent prior authorization rules, increase claims denials, and impose reductions on the amounts they pay hospitals, doctors and other providers;
  • Physician practices will impose limits on patient access for non-essential and less remunerative services like wellness visits and preventive care. Private equity, insurer and some hospital-owned physician practices will speed up the treadmill that already has a typical office visit down to 13 minutes or less;
  • Fewer doctors in many areas of the country will accept new Medicare patients, resulting in longer wait times and more difficulty finding providers, especially specialists; and
  • Some of those extra benefits in MA plans will disappear or be made more difficult to use. Many plans may impose higher out-of-pocket costs; and
  • The cuts will be especially damaging in rural areas already suffering from hospital closures and physician shortages. Seniors and the disabled will have to travel farther for care.

CBO estimated Congress could save nearly $1 trillion over the next decade by simply cutting MA plan payments down to the same amount providers would have received had their beneficiaries remained in traditional Medicare. Instead, they crafted a sequestration that will make it harder and more expensive for seniors and the disabled to access care.

It is the ways that will affect beneficiaries is what the general public needs to hear about as the bill now moves to the Senate — not the top line dollar number for the cuts.

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News.

5 Ways Paul Ryan’s Budget Screws Seniors

5 Ways Paul Ryan’s Budget Screws Seniors

paulryanofficial

Republicans marched to their biggest landslide victory since before the Great Depression in 2010, buoyed by a terrible economy and the withering attack that Democrats had cut Medicare to fund Obamacare.

Democrats saw their 4-point advantage with voters over 65 in 2008 turned into a 6 percent disadvantage in 2010. In 2012 Democrats won 2 percent back but the GOP still retains a 3 percent advantage with the nation’s most reliable voters — though polling has shown that Republicans  may be alienating this crucial voting bloc with extremism and a willingness to gut essential services.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who famously campaigned with his senior-citizen mother in 2012 as Mitt Romney’s running mate, has decided to see if he can erase what’s left of the GOP’s advantage with seniors by releasing another budget. As with each preceding budget, he has made his cuts to Medicare — which are all delayed for 10 years in an attempt to blunt the political damage — slightly less severe, hoping to dull the reputation as the guy who wants to maim Medicare, a position that won him jeers while speaking to AARP.

But Ryan’s budget is even more brutal this time to older Americans, especially the nation’s poorest seniors, while still promising $200,000 annually in tax breaks to those who earn over a million dollars a year.

Here are five ways Ryan’s latest budget would cause real pain for seniors.

Higher Medicare Costs Now

hands off medicare

Republicans often point out that Obamacare cuts Medicare Advantage and reforms the program. But they fail to mention, as Democrats often do, the benefits the president’s health law has given to current Medicare beneficiaries.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare reports:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently reported that since the passage of the ACA, over 7.9 million Medicare beneficiaries in the Medicare Part D donut hole have saved $9.9 billion on their prescription drugs, an average of $1,265 per person.  Also, 37.2 million people with Medicare took advantage of at least one preventive service with no cost sharing, including an estimated 26.5 million people with traditional Medicare, and more than 4 million who took advantage of the Annual Wellness Visit.

Ryan’s budget would repeal those benefits while keeping the cuts Republicans have been campaigning against for four years now.

Obamacare reforms have also lowered the growth of Medicare’s costs to zero. If this trend continues, the program would be solvent even through the peak of Baby Boomer retirements, protecting seniors from future benefit cuts.

Photo: joetta@sbcglobal.net via Flickr

It Cuts Programs Seniors Depend On

mealsonwheels

In an effort to balance the budget in 10 years while keeping tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich, Ryan would cut a slew of programs seniors have relied on.

“Funding for Older Americans Act programs like Meals on Wheels, family caregiver support, job training, senior centers, and disease prevention programs, would suffer significant cuts when the need for these services is increasing,” the National Council on Aging (NCOA) reports. “Over time, these programs—which are NOT contributing to the federal budget deficit—would be cut by 22 percent below current levels.”

Another $137 billion would be cut from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, aka food stamps. Currently, 9 million seniors and people with disabilities receive SNAP benefits. And the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) that helps with the home delivery and support of seniors in their homes would completely eliminated.

The Senior Corps, which gives older Americans a chance to give back, would be completely eliminated right as millions of vital Boomers hit retirement, according to the NCOA.

Photo: Mike Rosati via Flickr

Medicaid Would Be Gutted And Left To The States

Rick Perry

Seniors know that Medicaid isn’t just a program that helps low-income Americans. It’s a vital lifeline for seniors as “the largest payer of nursing home and other long-term care, covering 49 percent of all such costs,” according to Families USA. More than 15 percent of seniors depend on the program. That share rises to 44.6 percent for seniors with disabilities.

Ryan’s budget would cut the program by $732 billion as it changes the funding into block grants for the states, which could then evade federal regulations that help ensure quality care.

Photo: The Texas Tribune via Flickr

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Cuts For 2 Million Seniors

medicareprotestseniors

Ryan’s plan also calls for $500 billion in cuts to “other mandatory” programs, which could include cuts to SSI for up to 2 million seniors, according to the NCOA.

The seniors who receive SSI are America’s poorest retirees, often those without any savings or familial support. This is the kind of cut that could turn the hyperbolic attack that seniors would be forced to eat cat food into reality.

Ryan doesn’t make this cut explicit, possibly because the insanity of eliminating a few dollars a day for the neediest Americans while offering millionaires more than $500 a day in tax breaks is too cruel to admit.

Photo: ProgressOhio via Flickr

Ends Medicare As We Know It

Seniors Medicare

Paul Ryan despises Obamacare. So why does he want to turn Medicare into Obamacare?

While eliminating the reforms that extend the life of traditional Medicare, Ryan would cut benefits for future retirees in four ways.

“The proposal would increase the Medicare eligibility age, raise the deductible amount for doctor visits, penalize or prohibit people from buying first-dollar private Medigap coverage, and increase monthly premiums for middle-class seniors with incomes over $46,000 per year,” the NCOA reports.

Ryan would turn the single-payer program that promises all of America’s seniors basic health care into a “premium support” model that’s much closer to Obamacare with a “public option” than today’s Medicare. And by raising the retirement age and eliminating Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and subsidies, Ryan would leave millions of future 65- and 66-year-olds without any health insurance at all.

Photo: longislandwins via Flickr

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World