Theoretically when a politician wins he rewards his voters, or at least spares them some of the pain.

However, Donald Trump isn't a normal politician. He does things differently.



President Donald Trump made an impassioned plea for support from minority voters during his election campaign by asking them, “What do you have to lose?”

On Tuesday, they got an answer, as did many of the rural, poor and working-class voters who propelled him into office. In his fiscal 2018 budget proposal, Trump asked Congress for $3.6 trillion in spending cuts that would mean steep reductions in food stamps, Medicaid health insurance payments, disability benefits, low-income housing assistance and block grants that fund meals-on-wheels for the elderly.

... Budget Director Mick Mulvaney called the spending proposal released Tuesday a rethinking of government to place greater weight on the interests of the people who pay taxes rather than those who turn to it for help.

Or to put it in Trumpian, "Cutting off the losers who voted for me."

I'm sure Markos would have something equally cruel to say, but include a mention about white people.



States that Trump carried in the presidential election are high on the list of those that spent the most federal money for Medicaid in 2016, including Pennsylvania at No. 4 with $16.6 billion, Ohio a notch lower with $15.1 billion and Michigan at No. 7 with $12.3 billion, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Among the top 25 states for proportion of households receiving food stamps, Trump won 16 of them, according to a comparison of election results and Census Bureau figures. That includes three in the top five for usage: Mississippi, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Those three also are among the top states with the highest proportion of beneficiaries of Social Security disability payments. Of the 25 states with the highest shares of recipients compared with total population, Trump carried 17 of them in November.

Cuts to agricultural programs also will be felt in Trump country. Eight of the 10 states that received the most federal money in farm subsides voted for Trump, according to a state ranking compiled by the Environmental Working Group. Even in Illinois and Minnesota, the two states that voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton, rural areas supported the Republican.

It would have been hard to craft a budget with more targeted pain against the poor Republican voter.

Which is why there is no chance it will pass Congress in this form.

However, Congress has there own plan to inflict pain on their voting base.



The current Republican bill to repeal and replace major parts of Obamacare will lead to 23 million more Americans not having health insurance coverage by 2026 if it becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office projected Wednesday.

Like Trump's budget, Trumpcare/Ryancare would target poor Republican voters.



Among those hit the hardest under the current House bill are 60-year-olds with annual incomes of $30,000, particularly in rural areas where healthcare costs are higher and Obamacare subsidies are greater.

In nearly 1,500 counties nationwide, such a person stands to lose more than $6,000 a year in federal insurance subsidies. Ninety percent of those counties backed Trump, the analysis shows.

And 68 of the 70 counties where these consumers would suffer the largest losses supported Trump in November.

...Meanwhile, higher-income, younger Americans — many of whom live in urban areas won by Democrat Hillary Clinton — stand to get more assistance in the Republican legislation.

Once again, the bill is unlikely to become law in its current form.

Nevertheless, it's amazing to see a political party show such open disdain for the welfare of its supporters, and not be Democrats.

The worst possible thing that Democrats could do to Republicans would be to let them get what they want.

On the other hand, this is a unique opportunity for Dems to make inroads into deep Republican country, but only by showing people that you actually care. And that key is health care.

Not by defending Obamacare, which is collapsing. Iowa is Obamacare's canary in the coalmine.



In an article last week looking at the health of the state insurance marketplaces set up by the Affordable Care Act, I wrote about why Iowa’s was in a dire situation. Three of its insurers recently said they may exit the Obamacare marketplaces, which threatens to leave tens of thousands of people with no way to buy the subsidized insurance promised by the law. The situation there is actually far more tenuous and could be a glimpse of what’s to come in other states. In 94 of Iowa’s 99 counties, insurers have said they may not sell new plans on the individual market at all, even outside the subsidized markets set up by the ACA.

This is a serious concern for people who buy insurance on the individual market, because as Congress debates how to repeal and replace the ACA, just about every policy scenario assumes that the individual markets will continue to exist through 2018. And although the markets were already in trouble in some places, the White House’s decision not to take actions that could stabilize them could continue to scare off insurers, resulting in more states facing a situation like Iowa’s.

We aren't just talking about losing Obamacare insurance. We aren't just talking about not being able to afford insurance.

We are talking about not being able to buy ANY insurance.

The GOP has no solution for this scenario.

But the House Dems do.



As lawmakers and the public awaited the Congressional Budget Office's score on the GOP's "horrific" Trumpcare bill, Congressional Democrats on Tuesday doubled-down on their call for a Medicare-for-All system to provide universal healthcare to all Americans.

At a morning press conference outside the U.S. Capitol, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) was joined by fellow lawmakers and healthcare advocates in promoting HR 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare-for-All Act. As Common Dreams previously reported, the legislation has more Democratic support than it ever has before; as of Tuesday, there are 111 co-sponsors including the chairman of the House Democratic caucus, Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), who signed on last week.

"I've never seen more energy behind this issue of Medicare for All," Conyers said at Wednesday's event

Contrary to establishment Democratic thought, Trump voters are open to the idea of Medicare For All.



Increasingly, the single-payer solution is generating that sort of consensus across ideological and party affiliations. In early April, an Economist/ YouGov poll showed that 60 percent of respondents supported a “Medicare for all” system, including 43 percent of people who identified as conservative and 40 percent of Trump voters.

The energy behind single payer is partly a result of the GOP’s success in pointing out the flaws in Obamacare, then failing to offer a workable alternative. Vitale believes that, in a paradoxical way, it’s also driven by Trump.

The thing is, there is a very narrow window for this crisis to not get ugly.

Obamacare has only a couple years left in it.

The economy could go into recession at any time.

If anything like either Ryancare or Trump's budget passes, things will go downhill fast.

And all those poor white working class voters who voted for Trump out of desperation will literally have nothing to lose in no time at all.



Today, there are approximately 205 million working age Americans, and close to half of them have no financial cushion whatsoever. In fact, a new survey conducted by the Federal Reserve has found that 44 percent of Americans do not even have enough money “to cover an unexpected $400 expense”… Nearly eight years into an economic recovery, nearly half of Americans didn’t have enough cash available to cover a $400 emergency. Specifically, the survey found that, in line with what the Fed had disclosed in previous years, 44% of respondents said they wouldn’t be able to cover an unexpected $400 expense like a car repair or medical bill, or would have to borrow money or sell something to meet it. Not only that, the same survey discovered that 23 percent of U.S. adults will not be able to pay their bills this month… Just as concerning were other findings from the study: just under one-fourth of adults, or 23%, are not able to pay all of their current month’s bills in full while 25% reported skipping medical treatments due to cost in the prior year. Additionally, 28% of adults who haven’t retired yet reported to being grossly unprepared, indicating they had no retirement savings or pension whatsoever. But just because you can pay your bills does not mean that you are doing well. Tens of millions of Americans barely scrape by from paycheck to paycheck each and every month.

In fact, a survey by CareerBuilder discovered that 75 percent of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck at least some of the time… Three-quarters of Americans (75 percent) are living paycheck-to-paycheck to make ends meet, according to a survey from CareerBuilder. Thirty-eight percent of employees said they sometimes live paycheck-to-paycheck, 15 percent said they usually do and 23 percent said they always do. While making ends meet is a struggle for many post-recession, those with minimum wage jobs continue to be hit the hardest. Of workers who currently have a minimum wage job or have held one in the past, 66 percent said they couldn’t make ends meet and 50 percent said they had to work more than one job to make it work .

When people are this bad off, you don't scoff at their misery like Markos. You offer help and solutions. That's how you win back Congress.