Ryder Christ
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — The U.S. Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Thursday, prompting sharply divided reactions over its sweeping tax cuts, defense spending increases, and steep reductions to social safety net programs.
Democrats in Congress uniformly opposed the bill, which now heads to President Trump’s desk. Former State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson also criticized the legislation, calling it a “disaster” for working Americans and the vulnerable.
“If you’re the top 1%, probably this bill is going to benefit you. If you’re the rest of the United States of America, this bill is a disaster,” Jackson said.
She argued the bill would explode the federal deficit and gut Medicaid and food assistance programs, placing hospitals and low-income families at risk.
“This bill is blowing open the deficit now by another $3.4 trillion so that by the end of the decade we’ll be spending $1 trillion a year just to pay our debt,” Jackson said.
“This bill essentially decimates the Medicaid program that’s gonna put 12 to 16 million people out of the opportunity to get health care when they need it,” she added. “Hospitals are gonna close. Nursing homes are gonna close. People are not gonna be able to access the health care they need.”
Jackson also criticized the bill’s impact on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which she said would leave millions without access to food, including children, veterans, and seniors.
“Food for 7 million people is going to be denied or made less available… Where is this money going that they’re saving from these programs? It’s going for tax cuts to the rich.”
Former Santa Barbara City Councilman Dale Francisco praised the bill’s continuation of Trump-era tax cuts and increased military spending, saying it would strengthen the economy and national defense.
“I would agree with Speaker Johnson that it will make the country more prosperous and stronger,” Francisco said.
He dismissed Democratic concerns over the bill’s tax structure, noting the overwhelming share of federal income taxes paid by top earners.
“The top half pay 97%. So it’s really hard to do tax cuts without benefiting people in the upper portion of income earners,” he said. “The top 1%, the evil 1%, they contribute 40% of all federal income tax revenue. So obviously tax cuts are going to be beneficial to people who are paying taxes. Not to the people who don’t.”
Francisco argued that concerns about Medicaid and SNAP were overblown, describing the projected reductions as modest slowdowns in program growth rather than true cuts.
“They’re mostly conjectural,” he said. “What we’re talking about here is not actual cuts but maybe a slight slowdown in the increases.”
He also advocated for work requirements for certain Medicaid recipients.
“The 15 million people who are able-bodied with no children and no other dependents, there should be a work requirement for those folks,” Francisco said.
Jackson pushed back, saying most Medicaid recipients are already working or unable to work due to caregiving responsibilities, disability, or school.
“Over 2/3 of the people who get Medicaid are already working full time or most of the time… the others who don’t work are usually caregivers or students or others who themselves are disabled.”
She further objected to the bill’s rollback of clean energy incentives and expansion of funding for immigration enforcement.
“We’re going to lose 800,000 jobs because we’re gonna start now giving money to the oil and natural gas industry,” Jackson said. “We’re gonna be seeing these jackboots around more and more. The American people don’t like it. It’s contrary to American values, and I think it’s an embarrassment and a disgrace to this country.”
Though both leaders acknowledged flaws in the bill’s construction, including last-minute amendments, they remained sharply divided on its overall impact.
Click here to follow the original article.
