By Jerry Kremer
I’ve been thinking about President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which Congress passed in July. Recently Trump stated that it was time to call the legislation something else. But what do you call a bill that is highly unpopular with the public and is set to do much damage?
Shakespeare said it best in “Romeo and Juliet,” when he wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” So Shakespeare might have agreed that no matter what you call this bill, it will have the same impact on the American public.
To begin with, when you pass a thousand-page piece of legislation, it will have good parts and bad parts. Members of the majority party in Congress are forced to vote for the entire bill, and they don’t have the luxury of stripping out the bad from the good. So they have to live with the results.
A poll last month by the Pew Research Center found that 46 percent of the country disapproved of the law, and just 32 percent approved of it, with 23 percent saying they weren’t sure. It seems obvious that calling it something else won’t change the public’s feelings about it.
Why is the bill so broadly unpopular? Much of the publicity about it prior to its passage was negative. Almost every part of it got people’s attention, and those who opposed it were much more vocal than its supporters. Perhaps most important, it was clear that millions of people who are now eligible for health care were going to be knocked off the eligibility rolls.
The law will cut more than $1 trillion in Medicaid funding, and it’s estimated that more than 10 million people will lose their health coverage by 2034, including seniors, children and people with disabilities. States with high poverty rates are particularly at risk, because they rely on federal funding to maintain Medicaid and related programs. The loss of coverage will increase medical costs for families, and raise premiums for employer-sponsored plans.
In the lead-up to the passage of the bill, supporters in the House of Representatives portrayed it as being aimed at eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse.” There is no doubt that there are some Medicaid participants who should be disqualified, but the vast majority of people in the program are worthy recipients. Supporters of the legislation claimed that no person in the program who was currently employed would lose their coverage, but that is not true. Because states will get less federal revenue, they will be forced to drop qualified people from the Medicaid rolls.
For years, the more conservative members of the House expressed their opposition to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, on the grounds that it was too progressive and costly. They got their wish in the new bill, which would, by some estimates, cut federal spending on the program by more than $200 billion over 10 years. It’s worth noting that nearly 50 million people of all ages in the United States experience food insecurity, meaning they have limited or uncertain access to adequate food. Most SNAP recipients go to work every day, but don’t earn enough to feed their loved ones. The SNAP program provides the help they need.
Historically, the Republican Party has favored letting the states run assistance programs and keeping Washington out of it. But the Big Beautiful Bill cuts federal allocations to the states, and leaves them to decide who should participate in federal programs. The net result is that the states will be the bad guys when it comes to doling out assistance funding.
In the next few months, at the insistence of the president, there will be efforts to change the conversation about what is in the bill. Even though many of its provisions take effect after next year’s midterm elections, however, many millions of Americans are firmly opposed to it, and no amount of slicing, dicing and finessing of the contents will make them change their minds.
