Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, is taking a stand against proposed cuts to Medicaid in the ongoing budget debates. His position defies the traditional Republican stance and aligns more with populist and Democratic ideals. In a guest essay for the New York Times titled “Don’t Cut Medicaid,” Hawley criticized the faction of his party that prioritizes tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of social insurance programs.
He wrote, “This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. That argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.”
The budget bill in question, often referred to as the Trump omnibus measure, proposed cutting $880 billion from Medicaid to help finance $4.9 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. A poll indicated that 76% of all adults, including 79% of independents and 55% of Republicans, oppose significant Medicaid spending cuts.
Hawley pointed out that around 20% of Missouri’s residents, including thousands of children, rely on Medicaid.
Hawley challenges GOP on Medicaid
“These are working people and their children who need healthcare.
It’s wrong to cut their healthcare when they are trying to make ends meet,” he said. In an interview with CNN’s Manu Raju, Hawley reiterated his opposition to the cuts, saying, “It is wrong to cut healthcare for the working poor.” While he is open to work requirements for Medicaid, he firmly believes that Republicans should not cut Medicare or Medicaid benefits. Hawley’s stance challenges the GOP to reconsider its approach to social insurance programs and the priorities of its voter base.
He criticized the GOP’s apparent focus on benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the working class, stating, “It’s taxing the poor to give to the rich. And I’m totally opposed to that.”
As the bill heads to the Senate, Hawley’s opposition underscores the potential for significant intraparty conflict. His outspoken stance highlights the contentious nature of Medicaid and its far-reaching implications for the Republican party’s future.