Protect Our Care targeting swing districts with ads opposing Medicaid cuts
In a release provided exclusively to The Hill, Protect Our Care announced 10 new ads that will launch in districts represented by Republican congress members including Reps. David Schweikert (Ariz.), David Valadao (Calif.), Young Kim (Calif.), Ken Calvert (Calif.) and Nick LaLota (N.Y.) among others.
The 30-second ads feature footage of angry constituents at town halls expressing opposition to Medicaid cuts. They also show Steve Bannon, an ally of President Trump, saying in February, 'Medicaid you've got to be careful, cause a lot of MAGA's on Medicaid. I'm telling you. If you don't think so, you're dead wrong.'
The ads are a part of Protect Our Care's $10 million 'Hands Off Medicaid' campaign launched earlier this year.
Republicans aim to cut $2 trillion in federal spending over the next decade, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, this can't be achieved without cutting into Medicaid funding. The House committee overseeing Medicaid has been tasked with finding $880 billion to cut from the programs under its jurisdiction.
'Trump and Congressional Republicans are on a crusade to slash Medicaid to fund tax breaks for the wealthy,' Protect Our Care President Brad Woodhouse said in a statement.
'These ads expose Republicans for turning their backs on their constituents and prioritizing tax breaks for billionaires and big companies over the health and financial wellbeing of everyday Americans,' said Woodhouse.
'Republicans' budget proposal jeopardizes the health care of millions of children, seniors in nursing homes, people with disabilities, cancer patients, veterans, and the list goes on. Americans across the country, including Democratic and Republican voters alike, are counting on Republicans to do the right thing and protect our health care.'
According to the findings of the KFF Health Tracking Poll released last month, two-thirds of Trump voters say they want Congress to increase Medicaid spending or keep it same, while a third said they wanted it to be decreased.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump
Brown University has settled with the Trump administration, which is currently waging war on elite institutions of higher education. Under the guise of combating antisemitism on campuses—an important problem, though not one the federal government is well-suited to address—President Donald Trump's Education Department has gone after Columbia University, Harvard University, and also Brown. Brown's deal with the federal government has been described as more favorable to the university than Columbia's; Harvard has yet to reach an agreement at all, but is reportedly willing to spend up to $500 million to settle the matter. Large sums of money are at stake for all three universities, as the federal government is responsible for doling out billions of dollars in research grants. Brown is the recipient of $510 million in public funding. So it's not surprising that Brown wanted to make a deal. It's unfortunate, of course, that the Trump administration is using the threat of a funding reduction to dictate terms to what is ultimately a private institution. This is obviously a version of jawboning, in which political figures use non-legislative means to achieve some sort of policy end. When the Biden administration threatened social media companies and browbeat them into making different moderation decisions, it was swiftly recognized as a free speech issue by many conservatives, libertarians, and even some on the left. It's similarly vexing when the Trump administration—which has pledged to restore free speech and end federally driven censorship—does this. It's true that institutions of higher education are not entitled to federal funding, which, after all, is paid by taxpayers. The Trump administration, or any administration, could decide, in a moment of unusual frugality, that the U.S. is too indebted to continue sending billions of dollars to wealthy private organizations that have their own massive endowments. But the government shouldn't use the threat of a funding cut as a form of coercion. That's no different from how the Obama administration handled Title IX enforcement: Obama's Education Department instructed campuses to adopt policies that were hostile to free speech and due process, and they implied that federal research dollars would evaporate in the event of noncompliance. Indeed, the extent to which the Obama higher ed coercion blueprint has been adopted by Trump is under-acknowledged. All that said, the details of the Brown settlement are disturbing in their own right. It's true that Brown avoided some of the harsher penalties that Columbia got stuck with, and it's good that the settlement recognizes that the government has no "authority to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech." Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, complains that the settlement includes "no barrier to government interference in faculty hiring," but the only thing it really says about hiring is that it must be race neutral. The Supreme Court has already held that race-based hiring and admissions policies are almost always impermissible, so this is hardly some unreasonable, out-of-nowhere demand. But Dubal is also concerned about a provision of the settlement that permits the feds to collect and read Brown faculty course evaluations, and that's legitimately concerning. In fact, it speaks to the most troubling aspect of the settlement: It lends itself toward the creation of a campus antisemitism police that will be laser-focused on identifying, cataloguing, and eliminating uncomfortable and offensive speech that is nevertheless clearly protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the Trump administration is directly encouraging the formation of campus safe spaces. The settlement instructs Brown to survey students on their feelings of emotional safety. The survey questions are really something, and include: "whether they feel welcome at Brown; whether they feel safe reporting anti-Semitism at Brown; whether they have experienced harassment on social media." These are vague questions that will prompt subjective answers. Social media harassment is a particularly fraught topic; what constitutes harassment? If one student is being unkind to another student on Instagram or TikTok, is it really the university's job to intervene? Brown should act to counter identity-based harassment in cases where it's egregious, criminal, or abjectly violates the code of conduct. If students are drawing swastikas on Jewish people's doors, the university should certainly intervene. But the language in the settlement is too non-specific, and almost requires university administrators to overreach. No one should be naive about this, because it's obvious what's going to happen: An anti-Israel student will go after a pro-Israel student on social media, the pro-Israel student will say they are being harassed, and Brown will feel obligated to respond. No student should be made actually unsafe—i.e., be a victim of violence—because they are Jewish, or for any other reason. But it should be self-apparent to everyone who criticized the liberal safe space trend of the 2010s that re-orienting the campus speech police around the protection of Jewish students' subjective feelings of discomfort is not a positive development. This will produce the same sort of histrionics that existed when campus authorities were dedicated to policing speech that was perceived to be anti-black, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, etc. There will be an uptick in bias incident reports as students discover that they can weaponize the process against perceived enemies, as students absorb the idea that the administration is responsible for making them feel emotionally well at all times. I really thought the idea was to undermine the ideological foundations of the safe space mentality, not expand its identity-based reach. The Trump administration is erecting an edifice that would have been much to the liking of all those Play-Doh-loving, coloring-book-needing, puppy-hugging, safe-space liberals circa 2015. I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss South Park's jokes about Trump, the latest Epstein Files news, Sydney Sweeney, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D–Texas), and more. It has begun: My Nintendo Switch 2 arrived last night. I bought the system, one extra set of Joy-Cons, the Pro Controller, and three games: Donkey Kong Bananza, Mario Kart World, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. (The grand total was in the $800 range.) I spent most of the night transferring my data from the old Switch to the new one, and I've only had time to play about 20 minutes of Donkey Kong, so the full report will have to wait until next week. The post Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump appeared first on
Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mailbag: ‘Careless and heartless policies' are causing fear in our communities
I commend Patrice Apodaca's courage for using her column (July 27) to express objection to the meanness emanating from Washington, D.C., in particular the careless and heartless policies causing fear and upheaval in the United States' immigrant population. I do not understand the rationale for the indiscriminate, en masse sweeping up and exporting of people to countries where they have never been and/or putting them into concentration camps. I am particularly angry about this since the administration suggested that recipients of Medicaid can replace field workers. Next, they are to round up the homeless. Perhaps they will be sent to do farm labor. I empathize with Apodaca's concern that she will face retribution for speaking out. Dissent, a Constitutional right, now justifies retribution. Patrice Apodaca made good, intelligent points about the mean policies towards our marginalized citizens and residents. I do not understand how normal, kind, humane people can be devoted to our current leaders. Liz Swiertz NewmanCorona del Mar I want to thank Patrice Apodaca for her column 'Entering the Age of Meanness' published July 27, and the Pilot for publishing it, as well as the letters by Lorraine Gayer and Denny Freidenrich on that day. My wish is that everyone, including our president, would follow their example. Mary Ellen GoddardCosta Mesa After reading Mr. Colin Martinez Longmore's letter, titled 'The Diocese of Orange must not remain silent about ICE raids' we were disappointed about its erroneous assertions. To that end, as a pillar of Orange County faith, the Diocese of Orange would like to update the community about our comprehensive actions taken in response to the recent federal immigration enforcement. Because based on Mr. Longmore's letter, clearly some are unaware of everything we are doing. We would challenge Mr. Longmore and others to visit and witness the good work that has been accomplished and not rely on hearsay and innuendo. Our approach is nuanced, practical and pastoral, rooted in Catholic social teachings while also supporting the rule of law. It may not be apropos to catchy sound bites, social media divisiveness or alleviate all concerns, but we stand by our actions and commitments. In early June, we aggressively called for immigration reform (which has not happened in some four decades) while also advocating for peaceful protest that avoids our most violent instincts. It was anything but vague. Since then, we have fostered what we pray are beacons of light in dark times. While Mass attendance was initially down following the immigration enforcement, it has since returned to near-normal levels. Rather than give a dispensation from attending Sunday Mass, we encouraged our priests to celebrate Mass in the homes of those living in fear or ensure ministers bring Holy Communion to them. We never abandoned them in their time of need; instead, we offered the hope that comes from Christ. Should immigration enforcement occur at one of our places of worship — which it currently has not — our Catholic communities have received resource packets with 'know your rights' documentation and contact information for trusted legal and advocacy organizations. We recently hosted an internal seminar by our legal counsel on these issues. For the faithful facing immigration court, we send priests and deacons, offering spiritual support and a prayerful presence. This includes Bishop Kevin Vann, who attended the bond hearing of Narciso Barranco, the Tustin father of three Marines who endured a violent arrest while at a landscaping job. These actions and more exemplify the Catholic Church's pastoral care. They show how we are active and present in our communities, and they highlight our commitment to stand with our friends and families in faith, today and always. Bishop Kevin VannAuxiliary Bishop Thanh Thai NguyenAuxiliary Bishop Timothy FreyerThe Very Rev. Angelos Sebastian, Vicar General and Moderator of the CuriaGarden Grove
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Thune: Recess appointments on table as Senate faces backlog of nominees
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) says that putting the Senate into an extended recess to allow President Trump to make recess appointments to clear the backlog of his pending nominees is an option that's 'on the table.' Thune pushed back on the idea of putting the Senate into an extended recess at the start of the year to allow Trump to fill his Cabinet without having to go through the time-consuming confirmation process. Now, Thune isn't ruling out the idea of opening the way for recess appointments as the Senate faces a huge backlog of 161 nominees, mostly lower-level positions that in past years would have been filled by voice votes or unanimous consent agreements on the floor. 'I think everything is on the table,' Thune told reporters, who said that other options such as rules reform 'make more sense.' 'Fixing the rules, not just for now, but for the long term would be a better solution for it. But at this point right now, I wouldn't say we're taking any options off the table,' he said. Some Republicans are making the argument within the GOP conference that putting the Senate into an extended recess, which would allow Trump to swiftly fill open positions with recess appointments, is the best path forward. Proponents of going the route of recess appointments argue that there are so many nominees currently pending that it would take too long to reach consensus on a rules change to speed up confirmations, and that the rules reform would likely be too modest to have much of an immediate impact on the backlog. 'Whatever it takes,' Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said of adjourning the Senate for several weeks to allow Trump to make recess appointments. 'This is so completely broken, so out of control,' he said of the backlog of nominees. There are several obstacles to putting the Senate into an extended recess. The first is that Thune would need to get at least 50 Republicans to vote for the recess, and already two GOP senators have raised concerns about doing that — Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Thune could afford no more than three defections from his conference on recess appointments. The second obstacle is that the House would also have to agree to a longer-term adjournment resolution to opt out of pro forma sessions that block the president from making recess appointments. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hasn't given any indication that he plans to call his members back to Washington to approve an adjournment resolution, but that could change if the Senate decides to set the stage for Trump to make recess appointments.
