Beyond the headlines: How the Big Beautiful Bill threatens Sacramento's workforce and economy
That's why we must speak plainly and urgently about H.R.-1, known in Congress as the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Behind its polished name lies a set of policies that would do real harm to the people who make Sacramento work. This bill doesn't just threaten social programs—it threatens the very foundation of our local economy.
Let's be clear. This isn't about partisanship. It's about people. It's about practical economics. And it's about the kind of leadership our business community is called to show in moments like this.
H.R.-1 proposes deep cuts to Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) and SNAP (CalFresh). It will sharply limit access to the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and student loan forgiveness. These aren't handouts. They are investments—investments in health, in education and in stability. They are the scaffolding that allows working families to show up, stay healthy and contribute fully to our economy.
In the districts of Congresswoman Doris Matsui and Congressman Ami Bera—covering Sacramento County and part of Yolo County—654,344 residents rely on Medi-Cal. And that's just a fraction of the many across the capital region who depend on it for healthcare. That includes many of the workers who keep our restaurants running, care for our children and elders and staff our hospitals and schools. When they lose access to healthcare, it doesn't just hurt them—it hurts the businesses that depend on them.
Missed shifts, higher turnover, rising costs: These are not abstract consequences but are the daily realities employers will face if this bill becomes law.
It doesn't stop there. By slashing tax credits that help families afford childcare, transportation and school supplies, H.R.-1 makes it harder for parents to stay in the workforce. By capping student loan forgiveness, it narrows the pipeline into critical professions like teaching, nursing and skilled trades—fields already stretched thin.
We've seen this story before. When the safety net is pulled away, the burden doesn't disappear. It shifts—to employers, to local governments, to communities already doing more with less. Businesses are left to absorb the costs of instability: more sick days, more training, more churn. And over time, that instability becomes a drag on growth, innovation and competitiveness.
But here's the good news: We don't have to accept this. Sacramento's business community has a proud tradition of stepping up—not just for profit, but for people. We've seen what's possible when business leaders use their voices to advocate for opportunity and shared prosperity so our entire community thrives.
Now is one of those moments.
We urge every employer, every entrepreneur, every chamber of commerce and boardroom in this region to take a stand. Call your representatives. Make it clear that gutting the programs that support our workforce is not just bad policy—it's bad business.
Because the truth is, when we invest in people, we all rise. When we protect the health and dignity of workers, we build stronger companies. When we ensure that every child has a shot at success, we secure the future of our economy.
This is about who we are—and who we want to be.
Let's choose a Sacramento where businesses thrive because families are strong. Let's choose a future where prosperity lifts everyone—not just a few.
Let's reject H.R.-1 and stand up for the values that make our community resilient, compassionate, and bold.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘If you want Medicaid, get a f***ing job!' Republicans take hard line in support of Trump bill despite constituent worries
Nancy Mace grabbed her team, hopped in a van and raced back to Washington in her pajamas Wednesday to vote on President Donald Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — driving through stormy weather after scores of flights into D.C. were canceled. Mace, who is currently weighing a run for governor of South Carolina, knows that she needs the president's endorsement to win in a state that overwhelmingly supported him in 2024. So the mad dash, and the show she put on social media about it all, makes sense politically. But while the audience of one in the White House will appreciate the effort, many constituents back home may be far less pleased. That's because the Trump megabill forces states to carry part of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, if they have high rates of overpaying or underpaying recipients. And Mace sounds ready to throw some pain in the direction of her home state in the name of fighting 'waste, fraud and abuse.' 'So under some of the provisions, our state may have to pay fines of upwards of $300 million if we don't get the fraudulent payments for SNAP under control,' she told The Independent. The same goes for Medicaid. 'But if you're talking about able-bodied workers,' she continued, 'my policy is, if you're an able-bodied person and you want Medicaid? Get a f***ing job.' The Trump bill also puts rural hospitals at risk due to changes in how states can raise money for Medicaid. In Fiscal Year 2024, South Carolina had a 9.25 percent error rate for SNAP, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 64.7 percent of families in South Carolina on Medicaid have a full-time worker in their family. 'We're gonna be fined $300 million a year if our government doesn't get its s*** together,' Mace said. 'If I run for governor, you can be damn sure that's No. 1 on my list.' Many Americans continue to feel ambivalent of the bill. Quinnipiac University released a poll last week showing that 55 percent of Americans oppose the bill based on what they have heard. Americans are about evenly split on the work requirements, with 47 percent supporting work requirements and 46 percent opposing them. That could complicate the prospects for ambitious Republicans. New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, who represents a district that Democratic former Vice President Kamala Harris won in last year's presidential election, echoed the sentiment. Like Mace, he is considering a run for governor and has long complained about the cap that the 2017 Trump tax cuts put on the State and Local Tax Deduction, commonly known as SALT But Lawler said that the goal of the Trump legislation is to get states to run their programs properly. 'That's the objective, to get the program fixed so they should be working towards it,' he told The Independent. New York has a 14.09 percent error rate for SNAP. Republicans have long called for work requirements for social safety net programs, with some policy successes. But the current bill's work and cost-sharing provisions became a sticking point during the Senate debate. In the Senate, Republicans cut a deal with Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose state has an inordinately high error rate partially because of its rural population, to exempt it state from the cost-sharing part of the bill, which Democrats excoriated. But Rep. Buddy Carter, who is running for the Republican nomination to challenge Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia, defended the change in policy. 'We improved the program,' he told The Independent. 'We made sure that people who are on there should be on there, they're going to be off of that. Now we're going to make it better for those who truly need it.' Carter is running to represent a state with a large error rate of 15.65 percent. But Democrats say this will hurt states' ability to provide SNAP benefits. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic nominee for governor in New Jersey, specifically said it was unfair, 'especially from a state that sends $70 billion more to the federal government than we get back. 'If they're not going to run their programs, why are we paying taxes?' Sherrill told The Independent.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The House just passed Donald Trump's ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill.' Here's what that means for you
The GOP's budget package is on its way to President Donald Trump's desk after Speaker Mike Johnson called his colleagues' bluffs and put the Senate's package on the floor for a vote Thursday afternoon. It passed with a thin but steady 218-214 margin after conservatives in the chamber who were upset with changes made to the bill by the Senate folded one last time. So too did all the various Republicans who drew lines in the sand regarding cuts to Medicaid benefits or eligibility standards. The bill was passed through the budget reconciliation process in the Senate, meaning that it required only a simple majority to pass. That process also barred the bill from containing explicit policy provisions — though money itself is policy, and this legislation still provides plenty of funding for the president's political priorities. Here's a look at what made it in the final version, and how it could mean real changes for millions of Americans: At its core, the package's priority is $4.5 trillion in tax breaks enacted in 2017 during Trump's first term that would expire if Congress failed to act, along with new ones. That includes allowing workers to deduct tips and overtime pay, and a $6,000 deduction for most older adults earning less than $75,000 a year. The first and most expensive provision of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' it is actually an extension of the biggest piece of legislation to pass during Trump's first presidency. Then, after a failed bid to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Trump and his Republican allies turned to a more politically appealing target: tax cuts. The result was a tax bill passed by the House and Senate before the end of 2017, notable for its changes to the corporate tax rate (setting a flat rate at 21%) and lowering individual income taxes, though the cuts were found by analysts to favor wealthier households. Republicans, at the time, projected that it would not add to the federal debt, though it did. Sound familiar? The insistences from GOP leaders today that the OBBA won't add to the national debt were the same promises made by Republicans in 2017, who claimed that resurgent economic growth spurred on by Donald Trump's magic touch would make up the gap. Now, GOP leaders have the ironic task of selling that argument when the most expensive part of the OBBA is an extension of the deficit-swelling Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This time around, Republicans upped the game by temporarily expanding the child tax credit and removing taxes on some tipped wages. There's also a hiked cap on state and local tax deductions (SALT), part of a deal cut to get Republicans from blue states on board. The cap was boosted from the current $10,000 a year to $40,000, though it will revert in 2030. Somebody's gotta pay for all of this — or at least part of it. That's where Medicaid and SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, come in. Both programs will be subject to new work requirements under the law, with Medicaid spending alone estimated to fall by just over $1 trillion over the next decade in the latest analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). For Americans on the program, that means new reporting requirements and paperwork. Individual eligibility checks will still be handled by state-level agencies, which will set their own guidelines for determining whether recipients are in compliance. SNAP benefits will now be withheld from adults with children who do not return to work, if their youngest child is 14 years or older. The legislation also requires state governments to pick up some of the tab for SNAP payments if their in-state payment error rate is above a certain threshold. Another carve-out in the bill, this time to secure the vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, delays this provision in her state. The closest thing to a true policy provision in the GOP bill and one of the least-reported aspects, this section would turn America's immigration enforcement division into one of the most well-funded law enforcement organizations in the entire world. The bill delivers an absolutely massive increase in funding meant to transform the size and scope of immigration enforcement in the United States. Among the provisions: $46.6 billion for completion of the border fencing Trump demanded during his first term; $29.9 billion for ICE enforcement operations including the hiring of up to 10,000 new agents; $45 billion for the construction of new detention facilities. Put simply, the Trump administration is set to have the resources it needs for a massive upscaling in the daily number of arrests and raids that ICE agents are carrying out across the country. Utterly villainized by the right (to a questionable degree of success) after it was introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, the 'Green New Deal' never actually became law in any form. That doesn't stop Republicans from insisting otherwise, however, and many have latched on to the phrase as they pushed to roll back electric vehicle tax credits passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act under Joe Biden's presidency. Those provisions originated in Biden's signature 'Build Back Better' legislation, which failed early into the Democratic president's term thanks to an inability of Democrats to pull two centrist members of their Senate caucus into line. The OBBB strips tax incentives for wind, solar and other renewable energy projects by 2027 and gives developers stringent requirements to claim them. And electric vehicle makers like Elon Musk will also be hit because the bill ends EV tax credits of up to $7,500 at the end of September that had been scheduled to last through 2032. That was a big incentive for potential electric car buyers This part of the bill is a gift to two people: Mike Johnson and John Thune. The GOP leaders have watched members in both chambers balk against raising the debt limit time and time again, causing headaches for congressional leadership and sapping the time and political capital of the entire Legislative Branch. The just-passed legislation raises the debt ceiling by $5t trillion, averting at least one deadline later this summer. There's also a hefty investment, some $350 billion, in national security and Trump's deportation agenda and to help develop the Israeli Iron Dome-like 'Golden Dome' defensive system over the U.S. It's part of a $150bn surge in defense spending in the package described as a 'one-time' boost to help the Pentagon fund shipbuilding, munitions acquisition and other priorities.
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Elon Musk Touts 'Laser-Focus' Plan for How New Party Can Control Congress
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Elon Musk floated a proposal for how his new political party could build power in Congress in upcoming elections. Newsweek reached out to Musk for comment via the Tesla press email. Why It Matters Musk left the Trump administration in May and has since proposed creating a new political party called the "America Party" amid his feud with President Donald Trump over the "Big Beautiful Bill," which Congress voted to pass on Thursday. Third parties have struggled to break through in the United States, where the Democratic and Republican parties have for decades held a lock on Washington—despite frustration with both parties among many Americans. But Musk, the world's wealthiest person, has considerable funds to support a new party if he chooses to do so. What to Know Musk on Friday took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to suggest how the America Party could build power and hold considerable sway in Congress. The Fourth of July, also known as Independence Day, is the "perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!" Musk wrote. The new party could "laser-focus" on two or three seats in the Senate and eight to 10 seats in the House of Representatives to build enough power to play a key role in determining which legislation makes it through, Musk wrote. Elon Musk attends the Viva Technology conference in Paris, France on June 16, 2023. Elon Musk attends the Viva Technology conference in Paris, France on June 16, 2023. Chesnot/Getty Images "Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people," he wrote. His comments come after a new poll found that 40 percent of voters say they would consider backing his party. The Quantus Insights poll of 1,000 registered voters from June 30 to July 2 found that 40 percent of voters, including many Republicans, would consider supporting the party. Why Third Parties Struggle in the U.S. — Political Expert Grant Davis Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University, told Newsweek there are "several structural hurdles to creating and maintaining a viable third party." "The most significant is that with some exceptions at the local levels, our legislatures and executive elections use geographically defined districts that are represented by one person, who is elected by finishing first in the field, regardless of the size of the plurality.," he said. "We also replicate that system for president through the Electoral College, and the practice of the states, except for Nebraska and Maine, to award all their electoral votes to the candidate finishing first, regardless of the size of their plurality." This means that parties that can't compete to finish first have "little to offer their voters" and "have a hard time sustaining themselves, even after they are created," he said. People's range of political opinions in the U.S. tends to be narrower than in other countries, so it's harder for another party to break through, according to Reeher. "We have tended to have a broad consensus that argues over two different flavors of similar things," he said. "No one is really arguing for the elimination of Medicare or Social Security, for instance, and no one is arguing for genuine socialism (though the latter may be changing). What would a middle party be based on, policy-wise?" It's more likely that the two main parties will work on figuring out better ways to appeal to the middle, Reeher said. What People Are Saying Quantus Insights wrote in a blog post: "The signal is clear: a large slice of the electorate is open to something new, something disruptive. This is not about Musk. It's about the growing sense that the existing order is failing to represent the country as it truly is, or wants to be." Musk wrote in June: "If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day. Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE." Political Scientist Larry Sabato told CNN: "Well, certainly it's possible, particularly for the world's richest person. However, it is very difficult to do. I don't think Elon Musk has really looked into the procedures of creating a political party. Those of us who study such things for decades know that you have to be willing to spend an enormous amount of time and money, do careful planning. Will Elon Musk really stick with it?" What Happens Next Polymarket betting odds currently have a 45 percent chance that Musk will create his new party by December 31 and a 39 percent chance that he will establish the party by the end of the month.
