Photo courtesy of the People’s Policy Project
President Trump’s new budget proposal, the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” is already drawing fire from Democrats, who claim it robs the poor to enrich the wealthy. In reality, the bill delivers substantial tax relief for working families, without handing out money to the rich. It also introduces a simple requirement: some individuals receiving government benefits will need to work in order to qualify.
Critics claim that over 13 million people will lose Medicaid coverage under the new bill. But that figure is cumulative over ten years, not immediate. The bill doesn’t “take healthcare away from the poor”; it raises the bar for eligibility. Able-bodied adults under 65 will be required to complete a minimum number of hours each month in employment, job training, education, or, in some cases, community service to qualify for certain benefits. This requirement does not apply to the vulnerable, children, the elderly, pregnant women, the disabled, or full-time caregivers of young children are all exempt.
Importantly, those affected aren’t being denied care; they’re losing access to free, government-funded coverage under Medicaid due to updated qualifications. Many are expected to return to work and obtain insurance through employers or private plans. Others may requalify and reapply as their circumstances change.
Trump’s big sin here is requiring a portion of recipients to work for the benefits they receive. And Democrats hate any system where people are expected to earn their handouts.
Supporters of work requirements argue that they promote personal responsibility, encourage economic independence, and help control long-term government spending. They also reflect a widely held belief that public aid should be tied to effort, not handed out unconditionally.
Critics counter that such requirements create administrative hurdles that could cause eligible individuals to lose benefits. However, this is a non-issue. If someone qualifies, they will receive aid; if they don’t, they won’t. It’s that simple. If a bureaucratic glitch prevents them from getting their benefits, they can go down to the office, fill out the necessary forms, and request the aid be reinstated.
That shouldn’t be too difficult, after all, they’re not tied up at an office job all day.
Another argument critics make is that many low-income individuals work inconsistent or undocumented jobs, making compliance more difficult, and that unpaid caregivers may be unfairly excluded. But the reality is they should be working legal, documented jobs in the first place. It’s already illegal to work off the books.
They should have proper, wage-earning employment where both they and their employer pay taxes and contribute to Social Security. This counterargument, in fact, seems more applicable to illegal aliens, who, hopefully, will not qualify for benefits at all.
Democrats argue that administering a program where only some people qualify and others do not would create administrative costs, which they oddly claim will discourage participation. But this is a complete farce. The administrative burden falls on the government, not the recipients. Most taxpayers would likely prefer a bit more spent on oversight rather than handing out blanket benefits to millions who don’t qualify.
Critics often confuse bureaucratic processes with access barriers. But even in a more complex system, people will still take advantage of benefits if they’re eligible. When free money is on the table, individuals are incentivized to fill out forms and meet the requirements. As long as recipients follow the clearly defined rules and report as required, they won’t lose benefits. The only real risk is for those who fail to comply, by forgetting to report hours, missing deadlines, or not submitting documentation.
Apart from tightening the free-money faucets, the bill provides significant, targeted relief for working families. Trump’s proposal temporarily raises the child tax credit to $2,500, increases the SALT deduction cap for households earning under $500,000, and eliminates federal taxes on tips and overtime pay, benefits that go directly to the middle and working class.
The removal of taxes on tips and overtime, in particular, is aimed squarely at hourly and lower-income workers, not the wealthy. High-income earners rarely depend on tips or overtime, making this provision a direct acknowledgment of the financial pressures facing the working class.
The bill also seeks to make permanent the individual income and estate tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term in 2017. It temporarily increases the standard deduction by $1,000 for individuals (to $16,000) and by $2,000 for couples (to $32,000), with an additional $4,000 deduction for seniors through 2028. The estate tax exemption is raised to $15 million and will be adjusted for inflation.
For small businesses, the qualified business income deduction rises from 20% to 23%. The bill also allows businesses to fully expense domestic R&D and qualifying capital investments in the year they are made, measures designed to boost productivity and encourage domestic investment.
The savings are substantial. Medicaid changes alone are projected by the CBO to save $700 billion. These savings more than offset any increased administrative workload or setup costs. While some sources claim the bill will increase the deficit, that projection stems from tax relief and spending choices, not from waste or corruption. The CBO estimates the bill will add $3.8 trillion to the federal deficit over ten years, primarily due to reduced tax revenue.
Whether this tradeoff is worthwhile depends on your perspective on tax policy and economic growth. But the claim that the bill is simply “robbing the Treasury for billionaires” doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
The post Democrats Hate that New Bill Requires People to Work for Benefits appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.