Written by Tanya Terry
Featured photo by L.M. Land
On July 1, Vice President JD Vance cast a tie breaking vote for the US Senate to advance what President Donald Trump’s administration is calling the “Big, Beautiful Bill.” The House of Representatives, who passed their version in May, will decide on whether to approve the Senate-amended bill to make the bill a law. As of publication date, this had not yet happened.
If passed, the bill is expected to deliver tax breaks and an increase in spending for border security, but it would cut Medicaid and food assistance.
Although there are differences in the House and Senate passed version of the bill, both voted to extend roughly $4.5 trillion in tax breaks previously signed into law by President Trump during his first term under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Yet only the top 5% of tax filers in Michigan would receive 40% of the net tax cuts, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
The bill directs $46.5 billion towards U.S.-Mexico border wall construction and improvements. In addition, it directs $45 billion to expand detention capacity for immigrants and billions more to border surveillance technology and the hiring and training of personnel in Immigration, Customs and Enforcement, as well as toward other aspects of border security.
A major concern for many Michigan residents is the bill’s potential impact on healthcare. A reason for this is 1 in 4 Michiganders gets health coverage through Medicaid, according to the Michigan League for Public Policy.
Although the bill does not directly eliminate Medicaid, under the bill, adults under age 65, excluding those who are disabled, will need to provide proof twice a year of at least 80 hours a month of completing “community engagement requirements” to continue receiving Medicaid coverage. These requirements could include work, education or service.
The bill also reduces federal funding through restrictions on state-directed payments and provider taxes related to Medicaid, which is expected to lead to states reducing enrollment, cuts in provider payments and, therefore, reduced access to care.
Both the Senate and House versions of the bill include an estimated $285 billion reduction in federal spending for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over a 10-year period. States would be required to 75% of the administrative costs associated with the program, as well as up to 25% of the benefit cost. The State Budget Office has estimated this would cost the state approximately $890 million a year.
