The GOP Falls In Love With Red Tape To Force People Off Federal Programs
Government red tape and American flag as a metaphor for political and administration inefficiency.
Deregulation has been a cornerstone of the Republican brand for decades. And the Trump Administration vows to cut government red tape wherever it finds it. Yet, House Republicans would use their just-passed budget bill to create reams of paperwork explicitly intended to block low- and moderate income households or immigrants from government assistance to which they are legally entitled.
Just as progressives have used environmental regulation to halt development they don't like, President Trump and his allies on Capitol Hill are creating new bureaucratic hurdles to prevent families from tapping government benefits. And they are doing it just when Democrats are rethinking their historic love of paperwork.
The House budget, which its sponsors call the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would use piles of red tape to block legally entitled people from receiving health insurance through Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, cash benefits through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and food assistance through the SNAP (food stamp) program.
Not only would the changes force applicants to fill out more forms, they would require more government workers to read all that paper. This directly conflicts with the efforts by Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to fire hundreds of thousands of federal workers.
Hill Republicans don't have the votes to repeal these programs, but they can cut millions of people from their rolls by choking them with paperwork.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than 500,000 people would lose ACA marketplace health insurance because of this added red tape. Another 1.3 million would lose food stamps in any given month. 700,000, including many family caregivers, would lose Medicaid because they'd have to prove their eligibility twice a year instead of annually. Reversing a Biden-era rule to simplify the Medicaid application process would leave another 600,000 uninsured.
Supporters say all this extra paperwork will prevent waste, fraud and abuse. But this mostly is a canard.
In Medicaid, for example, nearly all 'waste' is due to improper payments to providers and insurance companies, according to an analysis by the research organization KFF. Separately, Georgetown University estimates the improper payment rate at about 5 percent.
Beneficiary fraud, where people intentionally claim they are eligible for Medicaid or a specific benefit when they know they are not, is just a small fraction of the overall improper payment rate.
While the extra paperwork may prevent some beneficiary fraud, much of the price will be paid by families who lose benefits only because they failed to file a government form on time.
For example, after years of trying and failing to repeal the ACA, House Republicans found a different way to hamstring the program: use paperwork to make it harder to apply for the insurance.
They'd narrow the ACA's annual enrollment period from 90 days to 45 days. And they'd require people to go through the entire enrollment process every year, in contrast to employer-sponsored insurance that automatically renews.
Instead enrolling online with a few clicks, consumers would now have to manually add information. And to receive premium subsidies or reductions in cost sharing, they'd have to verify their income, immigration status, health coverage status, and place of residence with documentation.
Currently, most of this information is automatically matched with existing government data. For example, the IRS can use its records to confirm an applicant is eligible to claim premium subsidies, which are structured as tax credits. Yet, the House would require applicants to produce more paperwork.
A similar burden would be imposed for other tax breaks. For the first time, families would have to 'pre-certify' children are eligible for the EITC. More than 17 million families would have to file paperwork on more than 29 million children.
While the paperwork may uncover some who are ineligible for the credit, the added requirement inevitably will discourage many qualified families from claiming the assistance and delay credits for others while their paperwork being reviewed by IRS staff. That's what happened when this was tried two decades ago.
Then there are the work requirements, which the bill would expand for SNAP, or food stamps, and mandate for Medicaid. About 80 percent of the adults subject to work requirements do, in fact, work. But many do so irregularly and frequently change jobs, and collecting and filing the needed paperwork won't be easy. Many who technically qualify still will be kicked off the rolls simply for failing to manage the red tape.
The requirement could be an even bigger challenge for those claiming an exemption because they are family caregivers. How will they prove that?
John Arnold, co-CEO of the foundation Arnold Ventures, puts it this way: 'The policy of work requirements is really a policy of work reporting requirements. This is nuanced distinction but very important. Inevitably, people who are engaged in work will lose healthcare coverage because they failed to properly document or report that activity.'
Curiously, just as Republicans are falling in love with regulation and red tape to achieve their policy goals, Democrats increasingly are attracted to a deregulation movement that's been labelled the Abundance agenda.
Supporters argue that Democrats and progressives have choked the economy through overregulation. A favorite example is how rules in cities such as San Franscisco make it difficult to build housing, leading to shortages for low- and moderate-income people.
It is a fascinating role reversal. While some Democrats are looking to lighten the bureaucratic load, Trump and his congressional allies see it as an effective way to achieve their goal of barring low- and middle-income households from accessing government assistance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Watch These Bitcoin Price Levels Amid Volatile Trading After U.S. Strikes Iran
Bitcoin briefly fell below $99,000 on Sunday to its lowest level in more than six weeks as news that the U.S. had struck Iranian nuclear sites caused investors to reassess their appetite for risky assets. After trending sharply higher between early April and late May, the cryptocurrency has consolidated within a descending channel. Investors should watch crucial support levels on Bitcoin's chart around $100,000 and $92,000, while also monitoring resistance levels near $107,000 and $112, (BTCUSD) briefly fell below $99,000 on Sunday as news that the U.S. had struck Iranian nuclear sites caused investors to reassess their appetite for risky assets. The digital currency moved as low as $98,200 on Sunday afternoon, its lowest level since May 8, amid uncertainty about the geopolitical and economic outlook after the U.S. late Saturday entered a conflict between Israel that had intensified over the past week. In recent trading, bitcoin had rebounded to about $101,200 but was still well down from its high last Monday of near $109,000. Below, we take a closer look at bitcoin's chart and apply technical analysis to identify crucial price levels worth watching out for. After trending sharply higher between early April and late May, bitcoin has consolidated within a descending channel. Over the past week, the cryptocurrency's price has retraced toward the pattern's lower trendline, an area on the chart that closely aligns with the psychological $100,000 level. Moreover, recent selling has coincided with the relative strength index falling below its neutral threshold, signaling weakening price momentum. Let's identify crucial support and resistance levels on Bitcoin's chart. Investors should initially monitor the $100,000 level. This area on the chart is likely to gain significant attention near the descending channel's lower trendline and a range of corresponding trading activity stretching back to last November. A decisive close below this level could see the cryptocurrency's price revisit lower support around $92,000. Investors may seek buying opportunities in this area near a horizontal line that links a series of price action on the chart between November and April. The first resistance level to watch sits around $107,000. The cryptocurrency could face overhead selling pressure in this location near the descending channel's top trendline, which also closely aligns with prominent peaks that formed on the chart in December and January. Finally, buying above this level could see BTC bulls push the price toward $112,000. Investors who have accumulated bitcoin during its recent retracement could decide to lock in profits near last month's high, which also marks the cryptocurrency's all-time high. The comments, opinions, and analyses expressed on Investopedia are for informational purposes only. Read our warranty and liability disclaimer for more info. As of the date this article was written, the author does not own any of the above securities. Read the original article on Investopedia Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CBS News
34 minutes ago
- CBS News
Boston protesters condemn U.S. attack in Iran as Rep. Lynch criticizes president's decision
A crowd of approximately 500 demonstrators took to the streets of downtown Boston Sunday to protest recent U.S. military strikes against Iran, while Gov. Maura Healey was briefed by Homeland Security. The march began at Park Street Station and culminated with a rally on the Boston Common, where activists, community leaders and concerned citizens gathered to make their voices heard. Protesters' demands The demonstration was organized by several advocacy groups, including the National Iranian American Council, Massachusetts Peace Action, Northshore for Palestine, and Jewish Voice for Peace Boston. Protesters said they were calling for a clear rejection by Congress of any steps toward war with Iran, a negotiated nuclear deal, and a formal congressional investigation into the strikes recently ordered by President Donald Trump against Iranian nuclear facilities. Lynch: Congress not told of strikes In an interview with WBZ-TV, Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch said that Congress was not made aware of these military strikes. "We had no prior contact or notification from the president," said Rep. Lynch. "He informed some of the Republican members and then did not inform the Democratic members. That's a complete breach of protocol. I think every American president in our history has always made sure that when we go into battle, we go in together as one country." Lynch also said that this is something he would consider an act of war, one that would require congressional approval. "It involved the deployment of U.S. forces, and we could have just as easily had casualties there," Rep. Lynch said. Rep. Lynch said that confidential security briefings will be held for members of congress over the coming days. He also added that conversation amongst Republican members of the house are split at the moment, with several members feeling betrayed after President Trump campaigned on not bringing the United States into foreign conflict. "The narrative was that President Trump was going to keep us out of these types of situations," he said. "There will be consequences to these attacks." Healey briefed by Homeland Security In a statement, Massachusetts Gov. Healey said she received a briefing from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem Sunday afternoon. "While there are no specific threats to Massachusetts at this time, we are continuing to coordinate with state, local and federal partners to closely monitor the situation," said Healey in the statement.
Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Storm's Nneka Ogwumike, WNBA players union president, speaks out on CBA negotiations
SEATTLE — As president of the WNBA's players union, Seattle Storm forward Nneka Ogwumike has been asked time and again about the league's collective bargaining agreement discussions. The WNBA is bringing in more money than ever from sponsors and ticket sales, and will bring in much more from its 11-year media rights deal , worth around $200 million per year starting in 2026 — yet player salaries haven't increased drastically in recent years. In light of other players around the WNBA speaking out, Ogwumike addressed the matter of player salaries following the Storm's 89-79 win over the New York Liberty on Sunday .
