View this post on the web at [link removed]

(Our morning content is for all of our thousands of subscribers - enjoy!)
⏰ 5 min read
A Crossroads for Senate and House Republicans
Senate and House Republicans are once again standing at a familiar intersection: one road leads toward restoring discipline in Washington, the other toward accepting that the federal government will remain bloated and debt-ridden. Down one path is the hard work of trimming commitments and reining in spending. Down the other lies political convenience, allowing programs created for short-term emergencies to become permanent parts of an ever-expanding federal government.
That’s the real choice now confronting Republican leaders in Congress as debate heats up over whether to extend pandemic-era subsidies for Obamacare plans. The decision is more than an argument over healthcare; it’s a referendum on whether the party still believes the federal government can be right-sized at all.
What Was in the One Big Beautiful Bill
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed earlier this year, attempted to curb runaway federal healthcare spending for the first time. It added Medicaid work and community-engagement requirements for confident adults, tightened eligibility and verification—including new pre-enrollment checks that end automatic re-enrollment for subsidized marketplace coverage—and lowered the ceiling on state “provider taxes,” which many states use to inflate federal matching funds.
Analysts estimate that federal health program savings could total several hundred billion dollars over the next decade, with some projections approaching a trillion dollars, depending on the calculations used. Supporters call that fiscal prudence; critics call it cruelty. But no one disputes that the law represents one of the first serious efforts in years to slow the automatic growth of entitlement spending. Significantly, it did not extend the enhanced Obamacare tax credits, which still expire after 2025 under current law.
The Real Fight: COVID-Era Subsidies
The current fight in Washington isn’t about undoing those savings—it’s about whether Congress will add new costs on top of them. During the pandemic, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 temporarily boosted the federal tax credits that help Americans buy health insurance through Obamacare exchanges. The income cap was lifted, the subsidy enlarged, and the measure was billed as a short-term emergency fix for 2021 and 2022.
When Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022—without a single Republican vote—they extended those “temporary” subsidies through December 31, 2025. According to the Congressional Budget Office, making the enhanced credits permanent would add roughly $335 billion to $350 billion to deficits over the next decade, depending on the budget window.
If Congress allows the program to expire as scheduled, no new law is needed. Spending would decline naturally, and subsidies would return to their pre-COVID levels. Extending them, however, would mean another massive commitment of taxpayer dollars at a time when the national debt is approaching $38 trillion and the CBO projects that net interest payments will exceed defense spending beginning in 2025.
A Moment of Truth for Fiscal Discipline
Every Republican Member of Congress campaigns on fiscal responsibility. Yet the test of that conviction comes not in speeches but in votes like this one. Extending these COVID-era tax credits would transform a temporary emergency program into a new, permanent entitlement. It would signal that Washington can no longer bring itself to let even a temporary subsidy end.
There’s a deeper principle at stake. The Founders envisioned a government with limited, enumerated powers—a framework that presumes restraint, not perpetual expansion. Each time Congress lacks the courage to let temporary spending end, it drifts further from that design. The easy path is to prioritize short-term approval over long-term fiscal health. But the math eventually wins: borrowed generosity today means diminished freedom tomorrow.
So, Does It Matter?
It’s time to reclaim the federalist balance that has always been at the heart of the American system. Each of the fifty states has the authority to decide whether to tax its citizens and how to design healthcare programs that fit its own priorities. Some, like California, already subsidize coverage and will no doubt expand those efforts. Others will choose a more fiscally prudent path. However, reducing the federal government’s footprint in spending programs like this one is essential to restoring a sustainable, constitutional balance between Washington and the states.
Suppose Republicans once again join Democrats in extending these pandemic subsidies. In that case, they’ll confirm what many Americans already suspect—that even the supposed fiscal hawks have stopped believing Washington can live within its means. Letting these subsidies expire won’t balance the budget or solve the debt crisis, but it would be a small, visible step toward restoring honesty in government spending.
The greater risk isn’t political fallout; it’s moral drift. When lawmakers lose the will to end even the most temporary of programs, the phrase “limited government” becomes little more than campaign rhetoric. This year’s decision on these expiring healthcare subsidies will reveal whether the GOP still stands for something more than managing decline.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?