The Long Shadow Of Bill Clinton Over The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill'
WASHINGTON – An unexpected name kept coming up as House Republicans crafted their multi-trillion dollar legislative package slashing Medicaid and taxes for the wealthy: Bill Clinton.
On the House floor, during committee hearings and in hallway interviews, several Republicans have justified their Medicaid cuts by pointing to the Democrat who served as the 42nd President of the United States.
'We are reintroducing Clinton-era work requirements,' Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.) said in a floor speech this week. 'One of the most popular things Bill Clinton achieved in his presidency, and he worked with Congress to get it done, was bringing commonsense work requirements to social welfare programs.'
Work requirements — better understood as benefit limits for the unemployed — are the centerpiece of Medicaid and food benefit cuts Republicans are using to offset part of the cost of tax cuts at the heart of their so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Work requirements were the core of a 1996 welfare reform bill that Clinton signed into law.
There is, however, little evidence work requirements actually encourage unemployed Medicaid or SNAP recipients to find jobs and lots of evidence they bombard aid recipients with paperwork, causing even some employed people to lose benefits when they can't keep up. Their return is one of several bitter pills Democrats are swallowing as the GOP advances a bill amounting to a massive redistribution of wealth from poor to rich.
Just a few years ago, Democrats seemed to be escaping the 1990s politics of welfare, in which the government can help poor people only after a state-federal bureaucracy has vetted their deservingness. Now, they're watching Republicans repeatedly invoke a Democrat to justify health care coverage cuts which will result in millions of people losing health insurance and food benefits.
'I think work is really important in America and Democrats need to stand up for the value of work, and we should be encouraging work,' Robert Gordon, a former Clinton White House aide who is now a fellow at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, told HuffPost. 'But taking away people's health care and food benefits is not the way to do it, and it's a completely different animal from what was debated 30 years ago.'
Republicans originally wanted the Medicaid work requirements to start in 2029 as part of a package of changes saving nearly $700 billion over a decade. Hardliners demanded the start date be moved up to December 2026, a key concession that helped the bill pass on Thursday morning.
Even though the work requirements will obviously cut federal spending, Republicans say they don't count as cuts, and therefore that they are fulfilling Trump's pledge not to touch Medicaid. Under their logic, people will make their own deliberate decisions to disenroll from Medicaid because they would simply rather not document 20 hours per week of 'community engagement.' The paperwork hassle and availability of suitable work aren't part of the equation.
'Bill Clinton proposed work requirements. This isn't like some crazy conservative idea,' Rep. Nick Lalota (R-N.Y.), a moderate who vocally opposed Medicaid cuts, told HuffPost on the Capitol steps last week. (All the moderates wound up voting for the bill except for another New York Republican, Rep. Andrew Garbarino, who missed the vote because he fell asleep.)
'We're restoring Medicaid for the people who rely on it, putting in requirements for people to work that can work,' Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) told HuffPost after the bill passed the House. 'That's what the Democrats used to be, right? It's kind of sad that they're so extreme. They don't want people to work.'
Moreno and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are MAGA populists insistent that the Big Beautiful Bill not cut Medicaid. Even for them, work requirements don't count as cuts.
'If you can work and you're not working, you should be working. We don't want to pay people not to work,' Hawley said.
The law Clinton signed rebranded the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, capping its federal costs, imposing time limits on benefits and encouraging states to shrink enrollment through a system of work requirements. Participation plummeted, and so did child poverty, prompting Clinton and others to declare the reforms a success.
In later years, much of the employment gains among single mothers and poverty reduction have been attributed to the strong economy of the late 1990s. When the Great Recession came around, TANF enrollment stayed low, and scholars noted there had been a rise in cashless poverty among people who should have been eligible for assistance, but got none. Fewer than 1 million families receive TANF benefits today, making it one of the federal government's least helpful social programs.
At a committee meeting this week, Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) entered into the record an article describing the apparent early success of the Clinton welfare reforms.
'The welfare-to-work side under Bill Clinton was a success and we believe that this one will be as well,' Scott said.
For a brief time, it seemed like welfare politics had changed. During the coronavirus pandemic, Republicans and Democrats agreed that everybody should get stimulus checks, regardless of whether they proved their deservingness through work. In 2021, Democrats seized the momentum and enacted a near-universal child benefit. For six months that year, most American parents received as much as $300 per child. Child poverty fell as the U.S. joined peer nations in recognizing the economic disadvantages facing parents.
Democrats failed to make the policy permanent, however, after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) refused to vote for it because he feared voters would see the money going to crackheads, i.e., the undeserving poor.
One irony of the Bill Clinton name-dropping is that while Republicans may like him as a mascot for work requirements, when it comes to the federal budget, they're not following Clinton's example. In the late 1990s, a strong economy, combined with restrained spending and a higher top marginal tax rate, converted federal budget deficits into annual surpluses. Even with its $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance, Republicans' Big Beautiful Bill would add an extra $2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
In a speech on Thursday before the bill passed, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called out the Clinton surplus and widening deficits under Republican presidents. 'My colleagues have the nerve to talk about fiscal responsibility,' he said.
Gordon, the former White House aide from the Clinton administration, noted that the welfare reform law sought to boost workforce participation by providing flexible funds states could use to offer child care, transportation assistance and subsidized jobs. He also pointed out that the welfare reform law sought to mitigate the supposed evil of cash assistance – not in-kind benefits like health care.
'We're not talking about people saying, 'Oh, I'm not going to earn cash because I am getting it already.' Instead, it's, 'I'm not going to earn cash because I have health insurance.' It's a much weaker theory of the case, and there's a lot of evidence it is wrong.' Gordon said.
Clinton, for his part, vetoed two welfare reform bills sent to his desk by a Republican Congress that he considered overly harsh on Medicaid and food stamps, as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program used to be called. Later, the former president told the journalist Jason DeParle, 'I thought there ought to be a national guarantee of health care and nutrition.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
6 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Democrats are at odds over the Israel-Iran war as Trump considers intervening
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats are now finding themselves at odds over U.S. policy toward Iran as progressives demand unified opposition to President Donald Trump's consideration of a strike against Tehran's nuclear program while party leaders tread more cautiously.
Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership was scrambling on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips and or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodge-podge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Judge blocks the Trump administration's National Science Foundation research funding cuts
BOSTON — A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump 's administration from making drastic cuts to research funding provided by the National Science Foundation. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston struck down on Friday a policy change that could have stripped universities of tens of millions of dollars in research funding. The universities argued the move threatened critical work in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, semiconductors and other technology fields. Talwani said the change, announced by the NSF in May, was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. An email Saturday to the NSF was not immediately returned. At issue are 'indirect' costs, expenses such as building maintenance and computer systems that aren't linked directly to a specific project. Currently, the NSF determines each grant recipient's indirect costs individually and is supposed to cover actual expenses. The Trump administration has dismissed indirect expenses as 'overhead' and capped them for future awards by the NSF to universities at 15 % of the funding for direct research costs. The University of California, one of the plaintiffs, estimated the change would cost it just under $100 million a year. Judges have blocked similar caps that the Trump administration placed on grants by the Energy Department and the National Institutes of Health.
