In the shadow of Doge Cut's promises of Elon Musk, the president of the Mike Johnson room (R-La) is desperate to convince the budgetary hawks of the GOP that he can indeed find billions of dollars in federal savings during the next decade. At the same time, the Republicans were committed to extending and even relying on the law on tax reductions and 2017 jobs, which was adopted during the first Trump administration, despite many sources of research indicating that economic growth did not cover lost tax revenues as insured. The latest budgetary negotiations of the GOP comb downside the future of rescue in the event of a disaster of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the funding of Medicaid – ironically at the same time more life in the red states on the Blue States.
The strongly promoted illusion of Elon Musk as a financial savior through his frenzy as a destructive government efficiency has since been pierced after revised the cost savings estimated by his working group to a meager 150 billion dollars, instead of the 2 billions of promised dollars. With Musk preparing for his release from the government, Expert analysis suggests that its only $ 150 billion in supposed savings are almost the same amount in real costs associated with these cuts. Thus, chaos, cruelty and layoffs bought us nothing. All this comes in the midst of a recent report from the Treasury Department citing Record deficit expenditure During the first six months of the financial year.
The desire to reduce funding has become so random that the Trump administration is would have Considering putting an end to the role of FEMA in the assistance of the disaster recovery and to transfer responsibility to the States. Almost three -quarters of almost $ 40 billion in rescue financing spending in the event of FEMA disaster Since 2018 Was directed to red states, with Florida (25%), Louisiana (20%) and Texas (5%) representing half of all receipts. However, withdraw tens of billions of dollars from the federal budget of the Dollars Billion does not lead to the material change proposed by the White House.
Center-South and South-East states undergo the most serious, frequent and widespread climatic disasters. The map below, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, illustrates the total costs suffered by each state of climate events 1980 to 2024. Florida leads the nation with $ 450 billion in costs, and Texas arrives second with $ 436 billion.
Attention also turned to Medicaid after President Johnson has just barely passed a budgetary framework need House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the financing of the public health insurance program, to reduce nearly $ 900 billion over the next 10 years. Over the past years, the Republicans dreamed of reducing Medicaid and canceling the expansion that occurred via the Act respecting affordable care under President Obama. However, red states have become much more dependent on the law program today than blue states.
Our complete analysis of the flow of funds between the federal government and the red and blue states indicates how self -destructive it would be for the GOP to reduce the funding of Medicaid.
Among the nine states that received 80% or more from their Federal Government Medicaid financing during the 2023 fiscal year, eight were red. Of the 20 states that received the largest share of their Federal Government Medicaid funding, 16 were red. Overall, the federal government covered 73% of all Medicaid spending in the red states, compared to 66% in their blue counterparts.
Of course, many Republican leaders like to emphasize that the higher share of federal funding in the red states can be allocated to the average blue state ($ 940 per capita, on the basis of the population of the State) devoting more of their Dollar of State to Medicaid for a greater federal correspondence, mainly through the MEDICAIDE MEDICAIDE PROGRAM, $ by capita).
It's misleading, however. The federal share of expenses on Medicaid amounted to $ 1,540 per capita among all red states, against $ 2,100 among blue states. But the amount per capita increases in particular to $ 1,960 among red states when they only measure those which have also chosen to extend the coverage of Medicaid – more than one comparison of apple apples.
The per capita difference of $ 140 between the blue and red states soon seems to be an investment opportunity for state officials after the resulting advantages. Many independent studies have identified improved Health results Among the residents of states that invest more in Medicaid, with less cases of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and cardiovascular conditions, among other diseases and higher life expectancy. Economic benefits Follow in the form of increased productivity of work, better educational results, lower debt charges and higher credit scores, due to a healthier state population.
And while blue states receive 59% of all federal Medicaid expenditure, they are also responsible for the same or more proportion in federal tax revenues. It is one of the few categories of federal funding where blue states receive their fair share of federal dollars. The total net differential Between the federal tax revenues of the States and the contributions of the federal dollar to the states equivalent to a transfer of transfer of more than 1 billion of dollars from the blue states to the red states. Based on the declaration, the blue states receive only $ 1.08 from the federal government for each dollar taxed, while the red states receive $ 1.40.
President Johnson's desperate attempt simultaneously hold promises to reduce federal spending without cutting Medicaid, in addition to other important rights programs, has again led to proposals from beneficiaries '' Work requirements In republican circles. Estimates of those who risk losing access to health insurance due to these requirements reach As much as 36 million individuals. Despite the real loss which is probably closer to the most conservative – although still substantial –Rising Out of 5 million, the pain will be felt both in red and blue states. For example, Louisiana, Kentucky and Virginia-Western Virginia are among the deepest red states, but their respective residents are among the most dependent on Medicaid in the United States, the Center on Budget and Political Priorities suggests that more than a third of those who lose access to Medicaid will come from red states. This represents 1.7 million people if you use the estimate of 5 million.
Some of these states expected to be the hardest, such as North Carolina, Maine and Ohio, we have in particular the American Senate elections In 2026, where their republican operators could face a formidable democratic opposition. Already vulnerable The republicans of the Chamber of these same states, in addition to those of Arizona and New York, could become larger targets for the Democrats.
While the funding of Medicaid is the subject of a meticulous examination and the budgetary deficits continue to rise, President Johnson faces the intimidating and paradoxical task to appease the tax conservatives and to advance the GOP tax agenda in budgetary negotiations. Notwithstanding the long -standing republican ambitions to reduce the program, the unfortunate reality is that the red states have become even more dependent on the rights of Medicaid than the Blue States. Any effort to considerably reduce the program could be an act of political suicide. As anonymous alcoholics have noted it over the past 90 years of its successful treatment protocol in 12 stages for dependence, the first step is to recognize dependence.
With the help of the search for Michael Cheng and Peter Waggonne.
The opinions expressed in the Fortune.com comments are only the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was initially presented on Fortune.com
