It’s been more than a week since President Donald Trump signed his so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” into law, ushering in major changes to, well, a whole lot — from the tax code to Medicaid to food stamps to the border to the deficit and more. There’s even an overhaul of the nation’s air traffic control system in there.
Polling shows the bill is less than popular. One shows only 35% of adults supported it. And Republican lawmakers who voted for it are trying to figure out how to talk about it to voters to change that.
Democrats have been hammering Medicaid cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy, and Republicans are talking about border funding and tax cuts for working families.
Gina Swoboda, chair of the Arizona Republican Party, joined The Show to talk about how she thinks the budget will benefits Arizonans.
Full conversation
LAUREN GILGER: So, I want to start with potential cuts to Medicaid, a popular program, obviously, making a lot of headlines right now. It insures nearly 2 million Arizonans. The bill doesn't directly cut Medicaid, but it adds work requirements, renewal requirements for people — which a lot of experts think it will mean, you know, a whole lot of people get kicked off, become uninsured, especially in rural areas of the state. Are you concerned about that?
GINA SWOBODA: So thank you for that. So the Medicaid eligibility requirements like the provider Medicare taxes and the SNAP, they start in 2028. And one of my concerns — and I think the public's concerns based on how they voted in the last cycle — is that the states are expanding eligibility and have continued to do so based on federal funding and the federal government. That was the point of DOGE, the country's going bankrupt.
So, at a certain point, and particularly, let's talk about AHCCCS — which for your listeners is the Arizona State version of Medicaid. I used to be on AHCCCS. I used to be on Medicare. You know, I was disabled for a while, and then I was uninsured and had a minor child. And it used to be if you had a child under a certain age and you were an adult, even if you weren't disabled, you were eligible, right? You don't want the parent of a child that's like beneath, you know, that line of eligibility, to become ill.
So we ... and actually it was a Republican administration that did this in the state of Arizona. We expanded the Medicaid AHCCCS eligibility to cover working adults with no minor children, and that are not disabled, and we just can't afford it.
I mean, it would be wonderful, but we don't, we don't have socialized, fully socialized medicine in this country. And we can't afford it, obviously, because the country is teetering on a cliff. So, if you need to try to cut spending somewhere, that's a place. The programs were created, you know, for vulnerable populations. It's really a question of, do you consider healthy working adults with no children to be a vulnerable population? And the hope is no.
I take your point that in rural areas, particularly with regard to the renewal process, right? So now let's say you are eligible and you're in this bucket and you don't renew. We had this extended period of time where people weren't having to recertify. That — the theory there is that you have people that are no longer eligible that are continuing on the program for years at a time, which again is draining the resources. And, and my concern, and I believe President Trump's concern and Congress, is that there are people that are vulnerable, that truly need the benefits. And if we don't start to have people recertify and try to cut down on the massive — what I would call overexpansion — the program's going to collapse, and then the vulnerable population won't get anything. ...
GILGER: Right. Let me ask you about the spending involved in this ... because this is, you know, you're hearing lots of folks say this is tax cuts to the wealthy, cutting social safety net programs. It increases the deficit by an estimated 3-point-something trillion dollars going forward. I mean, if you're talking about government spending, is that a concern?
SWOBODA: I think that's a fair question. So, when CBO (Congressional Budget Office) scores — you know, they're looking at static models and they're scoring it as if the 2017 tax cuts went away. So, that's, I'll put that to the side and let the economists argue about that. But the things that kick in immediately and that are retroactive are tax cuts for working people. And you, know people, that are on Social Security, right? So there's no tax on overtime. Our JLBC (Joint Legislative Budget Committee) here in Arizona estimated that's $76.5 million that it will "cost" — tax revenue we won't get anymore because we're no longer taxing that. But that's $76.5 million that working people that are working overtime will have, which you know in theory, they're going to spend and put back into the economy.
On the no tax on tips, right, that's $23.5 million. For Social Security — all of us, I believe — agree we want our seniors to have more of the money. And when you think about it, Social Security, they've already paid a tax to put that money in there, and now they're drawing down that money. That's $53 million because all of the people that are over 65 are going to get a $6,000 tax deduction.
So, those go into effect retroactively to January. And what should happen is as these people are receiving these funds, they're getting more of their own money that they've earned or put into the system back, they're going to put that back into the economy, right?
GILGER: OK, I want to talk about politics before I let you go. You ran a very successful campaign for Trump and his allies across the state in 2024. You gained Latino voters, rural voters, lots of talking about working-class issues, right? Do you think this kind of policy — where there are these massive tax cuts coming for wealthy people, especially — is that going to make that message harder to sell in 2026 here in Arizona?
SWOBODA: Well, you know, for my part, as we just discussed, I am — the thing I was most concerned about, is the existing tax cuts going away, because that the result of that is actually a tax hike. And I do think in states like New York and like California, the salt tax. And for the listeners and your listeners are very high acuity on economic issues, so I know they know what I'm talking about. But the salt taxes where state taxes are offset by a federal tax cut. That was a big bone of contention, right? Particularly in the House. And we let that go through. I think they wound up at like $40,000. So there are states with people making a lot of money that their states have chosen to have very high taxes that federal taxpayers in states like Arizona are now carrying them.
So, the idea that we're going to let working people continue to be taxed and not give them a new break on money they've earned or like what Social Security money they've already contributed into the system, so that New York and California can give a $40,000 tax credit to people who truly are the wealthy — is a non-starter. Our working people and our vulnerable seniors need to have more money in their pocket. I think that if we discuss it like that, Lauren, then I think people will get it.
GILGER: All right, we'll have to leave it there for now. Lots more to talk about in the future. Gina Swoboda, chair of the Arizona Republican Party, joining us. Gina, thank you.
SWOBODA: Thank you.
