Oregon Rep. Cliff Bentz defends cutting federal spending, discusses Medicaid cuts

U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ore., said Wednesday that the nation’s spending on Medicaid programs is unsustainable, and he urged patience as Republicans in Congress formulate their plan to dramatically reduce spending on the health care program.

Cuts to federal health care benefit programs, and additional requirements placed on Medicaid recipients, will be “one of the focal points” as Congress attempts to cut $880 billion from the federal budget over the next 10 years, Bentz said.

After a tense exchange over the possibility of Oregonians losing health insurance nearly ended the interview, Bentz said he would be unlikely to support a budget that would reverse the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.

The three-term Republican lawmaker from Ontario was on OPB’s “Think Out Loud” on Wednesday.

Beyond health care, Bentz talked about his support for the Trump administration’s cost-cutting measures and whether he believes the executive branch is ignoring Congress.

These highlights from the conversation have been edited for clarity and length. A full transcript of the interview is available here.

On the Republican budget blueprint:

Dave Miller: Under the blueprint that you voted for yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has to make $880 billion of cuts over the next 10 years, and I should say that you are on that committee.

Bentz: I am, yes. It is the Energy and Commerce Committee, but it’s the subcommittee on health care that will be doing most of the analysis.

Miller: How do you propose to make those cuts?

Bentz: So the starting point is a much broader scope of activities and agencies than just health care, but health care will be one of the focal points, and the types of things we’ve been looking at include the possibility of a work requirement for those who are able to work.

Currently there isn’t one. And so, the idea is if you’re able to work and for whatever reason you’re not working, that if you want to be eligible for Medicaid, you’ll have to work or at least be making an effort to get a job. There’ll be all the usual protections, if that’s the angle that we choose to use.

Miller: The critique I’ve read is that that might add red tape but not significantly reduce the cost of the program. Have you heard otherwise?

Bentz: I have. And the indication is that there would be a substantial positive impact of a work requirement. But again, we’re looking at all of these things. This’ll be one of many different things reviewed to see how to make the system still deliver the type of benefits that people need while at the same time doing it better and in a way that saves money.

On Medicaid cuts in Oregon:

Miller: Can you tell us now that you will not vote for a final bill that would lead to Oregonians being kicked off of the Oregon Health Plan?

Bentz: You might want to qualify your question and say, if Oregonians are kicked off the plan, it’s because they don’t deserve to be on it. When I say deserve, for whatever reason, they are fraudulently participating or they’re participating for reasons that have nothing to do with the original goals of the program.

Miller: That last part is an important one because those…

Bentz: Dave, no Oregonian is going to object to our doing a better job in delivering Medicaid services.

Miller: Wait, wait, wait. Let me sharpen the question here because the way you phrase that, it seems like you left open the possibility that people who are now eligible for Medicaid because of the Medicaid expansion made possible under the Affordable Care Act…

Bentz: Well, you’re already including in your question assumptions. Don’t do that. Don’t do that to me, David, or we’ll have to discontinue our conversation.

Miller: Do you support a change to Medicaid that would essentially get rid of money for the Medicaid expansion?

Bentz: I think that’s unlikely in two respects. One, I don’t think that’ll be something that we’ll be doing, but I think it more unlikely that I would support it.

On the necessity of cutting federal spending:

Miller: What do you have to say directly to your constituents who right now might be worried about losing access to health care for themselves or for their children?

Bentz: Well, the first thing I would do is say to them: Who in the world is scaring them? Who in the world is taking the position that all of this is going to be reduced? Who’s doing that? It’s certainly not me. What I’ve been trying to do is say, let’s look at this program because as we are currently proceeding down this path, it’s not sustainable.

We cannot continue to do all of these things when we’re spending $2 trillion a year, 30 cents of each dollar more than we’ve got.

On extending the Trump tax cut:

Miller: What about the argument that given the cost issues you’re talking about, now is not a great time to extend a tax cut that would cost the federal government $4.5 trillion?

Bentz: The alternative is to let those tax cuts expire and then see the greatest tax hike in the United States' history. The challenge is how do we not allow that to happen and have the economic consequences, negative economic consequences occur?

This is an important matter. Every person listening should understand that. They will see, if they’re paying income tax, a substantial tax hike if this Trump tax cut bill passed back in 2017 is not extended. In other words, the current situation will change dramatically if those tax laws are not extended for everybody. Small business in particular.

On federal job cuts and whether the President is ignoring Congress:

Miller: I take your point that under the basics of the separation of powers, it’s the judicial branch that checks the constitutionality of things. I’m just wondering about your own take as a member of the legislative branch, what it would take for you personally to say we are being ignored? And this could be in the context of the current president or a future president who may be in a different party.

Bentz: I’ll guarantee you that we are not being ignored. And the reason is the administration understands that an executive order won’t be permanent. They need law to back them up, and they are coming to us and saying, ‘Hey, we’re doing this with an executive order, but we know we need Congress to back us up.’ I’m a Republican. I support what the administration is doing. If it turns out that it is beyond the scope of that which the court thinks is appropriate, then the court will tell us and we will follow that particular direction we have to.

I support trying to get spending under control, and I’m happy to see the administration trying to do something about it. It’s really, really, really hard. And I have an outline here, what it takes to shrink the federal workforce, it is super hard. The approach they’re using may be pushing the envelope. The court will call out whether or not it’s constitutional.