As Congress moves forward with a budget resolution focused on reducing federal spending, Vermont’s federal delegation—Senator Peter Welch, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Representative Becca Balint—have all issued dire warnings about potential “massive” cuts to Medicaid and related health programs. Their claims, however, are notably short on actual evidence and rely heavily on speculation and emotional appeals rather than documented facts.
The House passed a budget resolution on April 10, 2025, with a narrow 216–214 vote. The resolution sets up a reconciliation process that instructs various House committees to identify cost savings across the federal budget. One of the largest targets for proposed reductions is Medicaid, with the House Energy and Commerce Committee tasked with identifying $880 billion in savings over the next decade.
This figure, while substantial, has been widely misrepresented by Vermont’s congressional leaders.
The “Could = Will” Fallacy
All three members of Vermont’s federal delegation have framed the House resolution as an immediate and existential threat to vulnerable Vermonters. In a February press release titled “Republicans’ Plans to Slash Medicaid to Pay for Their Tax Bill,” Senator Welch framed the House budget as a worst-case scenario—implying that seniors, children, and low-income families would lose vital health benefits. But beyond the bold headline, he offered no evidence that the resolution actually proposes such outcomes. Senator Sanders claimed the House budget “could force as many as 36 million Americans off the health care that they currently have,” while Rep. Balint described the budget as a “betrayal of working-class families” and stated that it puts 157,000 Vermonters enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP at risk.
What none of them acknowledged is that the resolution does not specify any cuts to Medicaid benefits—or even to the program itself. Instead, it sets a fiscal goal: reduce overall mandatory spending under the Energy and Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction by $880 billion over 10 years. Medicaid accounts for about 93% of that jurisdiction’s mandatory spending, so yes, it’s reasonable to assume that Medicaid will be reviewed. But saying cuts could impact services is not the same as saying they will—and yet, that’s exactly how Vermont’s delegation is selling it to the public.
Using “could” as a certainty is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand. “Could” also means “could not.” But that’s not nearly as effective at motivating social media outrage or fundraising emails.
(A quick note for readers: whenever a politician—or anyone—uses the word “could,” it’s a red flag. “Could” also means “could not,” and that ambiguity is often used to imply certainty without evidence. It’s one of the oldest tricks in political messaging.
)
Cuts ≠ Harm
Let’s also clarify what $880 billion over ten years actually means. At roughly $88 billion per year, that represents a little over 10% of the annual Medicaid budget, which was around $800 billion in 2023. That’s a big number—until you consider where the cuts could come from:
- Fraud and abuse: Medicaid improper payments were estimated at $50 billion in FY2023. Even cutting that in half would save $250 billion over ten years.
- Administrative overhead: Medicaid’s structure is notoriously bureaucratic, with layers of state and federal administration, third-party contractors, and legacy tech systems.
- Duplicate services and wasteful grants: Especially within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which has already been flagged by DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) for potential audits.
None of Vermont’s delegation has addressed these possibilities. Instead, they default to an all-or-nothing framing: cut spending, and people will suffer. That binary thinking misrepresents the scope and intent of the resolution—and robs the public of the real conversation we should be having: How do we protect essential services while reducing inefficiencies and long-term federal debt?
DOGE in Action
While Vermont’s delegation was busy warning about phantom service cuts, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has already begun identifying waste and administrative bloat across the federal government—including within HHS, which oversees Medicaid. DOGE-led reviews have initiated large-scale staff reductions, contract audits, and cost-benefit analyses designed to shrink budgets without hurting the people who actually rely on federal programs.
In fact, DOGE has reportedly gained access to CMS systems to specifically target waste in Medicaid and Medicare payments. Those are the very kinds of actions that could contribute to the $880 billion in mandated savings—without touching a single recipient’s benefits.
Missing: Hard Data
If Welch, Sanders, or Balint had actual data showing what programs would be cut, what services would be lost, or how many people would be directly affected—they’d be citing it. Instead, their messaging remains vague and hyperbolic.
There is no breakdown of which Vermont Medicaid programs are at risk. No legislative text confirming benefit rollbacks. No modeling of projected impacts on hospitals, care centers, or patients. Just dramatic language, designed to frighten, not inform.
A Better Debate
Budgeting is hard. It requires tradeoffs, long-term thinking, and yes—sometimes painful decisions. But those decisions should be guided by facts, not fear. When lawmakers lean on vague talking points and alarmist rhetoric, they undermine public trust and obscure legitimate questions about efficiency, sustainability, and government accountability.
Vermonters deserve better than theatrics. They deserve an honest debate, grounded in data—not doomsday predictions designed to score political points.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontPolitics #MedicaidFacts #StopTheSpin
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply