Signals of Senate Tensions
Plus CWW launches Director's Cut
Welcome, Wonks!
This week we’re digging into reconciliation as it moves to the Senate, and launching another new standing contributor series.
Senate Turns to Reconciliation
This week, the U.S. Senate returns from recess and will turn to considering the U.S. House passed budget reconciliation bill.
It passed the House on a 215-214 margin, and will have no easier path in the Senate.
Reminder on Reconciliation: Our reconciliation overview explains how this fast-track simple-majority legislative process works.
It matters for child welfare since it could include funding cuts and policy changes for:
Medicaid;
the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG); and
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
What Passed the House: The House-passed bill includes over $700B of health cuts, including changes to Medicaid like:
Reporting requirements for work;
New cost-sharing for Medicaid beneficiaries;
More frequent eligibility determination paperwork
Financial penalties for states using their own funds to cover children and families who are not lawfully present in the U.S.; and
Elimination of state financing mechanisms for expanding access to specialty services like mental health.
The bill would also make nearly $300B in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), including new reporting requirements related to work.
S-PAYGO Could Hit Hard
The House-passed bill would not directly cut SSBG or TANF.
But, we’ve noted that it would result in automatic budget cuts impacting SSBG and other programs, absent Congressional action.1
That’s because the bill’s additions to the deficit would trigger across-the-board spending cuts.
This map shows the extent of cuts that would occur under that scenario. Congress usually waives that requirement, but don’t take anything for granted in 2025.
What to Watch in the Senate
These are key Senate camps to watch to understand where reconciliation is heading:
MAGA-caid Matters.
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) called Medicaid cuts a “hidden tax on working poor people” and Senator Jim Justice (R-WV) has concerns about the bill’s elimination of Medicaid provider taxes that states use to expand access.
This nascent framing emerges from a wing of the party previously more skeptical of safety net programs, but changing with the party’s demographics.
Centrist Contrarians
Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have opposed cuts to health programs, and continue to raise doubts about cutting Medicaid.
Both have built their political brands around willingness to take positions independent of party leadership.
Deficit Duo
Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) oppose the House bill for making too small of cuts and not eliminating the deficit.
Both are publicly communicating their willingness to oppose the package.
Timing and Decision Driver Forecast: Timing remains murky. The likely real driver? The debt limit.
Section 113001 of the House bill would lift the debt limit by $4T. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has communicated to Congress that the debt limit may come soon.
Why it Matters: Congress has historically avoided breaching the debt limit. Retaining it in reconciliation creates significant leverage over those with concerns about the bill.
What to Watch: The ripening of the so-called X-Date, when the real debt limit breach would occur, is likely to be close to when Congress leaves for August recess.
The closer we get to that point, the more we may see the debt limit become a larger factor in decisions for policymakers.
Breaching the debt limit would be defaulting on U.S. debt.
Reconciliation to Rewire Regs?
Before the House approved their reconciliation bill, GOP leaders removed a provision2 that would have significantly expanded the Congressional Review Act (CRA).3
What the CRA Does: The CRA is a policy tool Congress can use to reconsider and reject recent regulations.
Proposed Change: An earlier draft of the House reconciliation bill had a policy requiring:
A joint resolution of approval for any major revenue raising regulation; and
Retroactive approval of existing regulations, regardless of revenue impact.
Why it Matters: This would create major regulatory uncertainty. Retroactive approval would revisit major settled policies, in a deeply divided Congress with tight margins.
What Next: While it wasn’t in what the House passed, some GOP Senators are seeking to revive it. Watch for continued attempts to move it this year.
Wonk Out & Go Deeper: Read up on the REINS Act.
NEW Contributor Series: Director’s Cut
This week we are launching another new contributor series, Director’s Cut.4
This recurring installment will feature former agency directors telling it straight about what they wish policymakers, advocates, and philanthropy knew when crafting policy.
First up is Michael Leach, who was Director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS) from 2019-2025, under Governor Henry McMaster (R).
Director’s Cut: Hard Choices Shift Impossible Costs
By Mike Leach
It’s not a question of if the safety net will be cut again, it’s when. The pain won’t show up first in spreadsheets or headlines. It’ll show up in people’s lives.
A single mom will walk into her local DSS office asking for help with food or child care, and someone will have to say, “I’m sorry. We don’t have that program anymore.”
A social worker will sit with a family who’s doing everything right, and still have to tell them they no longer qualify. Not because we don’t care, but because we have to do more with less, and without the tools for the job.
When programs like SNAP, TANF, child care assistance, and foster care services face cuts or restrictions, whether through budget reconciliation or state implementation choices, the frontline feels it first.
We shift those hard choices to the families who need support and the frontline staff who have to deliver the bad news.
These workers are people who chose this work because they believe in helping others. But the more the safety net frays, the more they find themselves saying, “I’m sorry, I can’t help you.”
As someone who has led these systems, It’s heartbreaking. I’ve seen the look in a caseworker’s eyes after telling a dad he’s not eligible for a program that could help him reunify with his kids.
I’ve watched child care workers cry after having to turn away a single mom who’s just starting to get back on her feet. I’ve listened to SNAP workers explain to families that a change in policy—one they didn’t create—now means they lose their food benefits.
These workers didn’t sign up for this job to say “no.” They signed up to serve. And families didn’t come to us because they wanted a handout—they came because they needed a little help to keep going.
But when funding gets slashed or new rules are added that don’t reflect real life, the system stops working for the people it’s supposed to serve.
We like to say these programs are too expensive. But do we ever talk about the cost of not having them? The cost of parents losing jobs because they can’t find child care. The cost of families going hungry. The cost of another child entering foster care because a struggling family couldn’t get the support they needed in time.
And the truth is, this isn’t just a child welfare issue. It’s the whole safety net—mental health, employment/workforce, SNAP, TANF, child care, refugee services. These programs are connected.
When one part gets cut, the pressure builds somewhere else. We see it in schools, in hospitals, in law enforcement. And we especially see it in the lives of the people who are trying their best in a system that’s not trying its best for them.
As someone who’s led a state system, I’ve made hard choices. I know budgets are tight. But we need to stop making families and frontline staff pay the price. Every time we cut these programs, we’re telling a family in crisis, “You’re on your own.” And we’re telling a worker who wants to help, “Do your job without the tools you need.”
We can do better. We have to. That means investing in programs that work. Writing rules that reflect real people’s lives. Above all, it means stopping the practice of shifting the true costs onto the frontline workforce we already ask to do far too much with far too little.
Let’s build a net that actually catches people. Let’s make sure the next time someone walks through our doors and says, “Can you help me?” the answer is, “Yes. We’ve got you.”
About Director’s Cut
Each edition of Director’s Cut will bring former child welfare agency directors from across the country and ideological spectrum.
This is not an exit interview; it’s a chance for those who spent time “in the chair” to offer sharp and strategic insights for those who work on child and family policy.
If you’re a former director who would like to contribute, we’d love to hear from you.
About Michael Leach
Michael Leach is a values-driven leader known for his authentic approach and focus on improving child welfare and social service systems.
He served as Deputy Commissioner in TN and State Director of South Carolina DSS, and now works with states and nonprofits through Leach Consulting Group.
That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading, Wonks!
These are the cuts at a glance, and you can see more here.
$1.7B/year Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)
You can see more here on SSBG’s major role in child welfare.
It was on the reconciliation chopping block but then seemingly spared.
Now it’s back in the mix.
Over $600M and Rising/Year: Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program
In many ways the gold standard of bipartisan evidence-based child and family policy.
MIECHV was just reauthorized in 2022 by massive bipartisan margins.
$289M/Year for States in Title IV-B Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.
If S-PAYO hit, it wouldn’t just erase those gains, but the entire mandatory funding distribution in Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Section 70200 of the House passed reconciliation bill expands the Congressional Review Act to require a joint “resolution of approval” for any new major rule that increases revenue to take effect. If Congress takes no action within 60 days, the regulation does not go into effect. This could also limit the 3/5 majority veto override hurdle as well since there would be nothing to veto. Each year 20% of an agency’s existing rules must receive a resolution of approval or sunset. The Manager’s amendment (page 16) replaces it with $100,000,000 for a broad deregulatory initiative.
Codified at 5 U.S.C. §§801-808
In the coming weeks we will continue to launch a variety of new offerings from contributors, spanning perspectives from across the field and political spectrum.