INSKEEP: I think I’m hearing you say that you believe that people will lose Medicaid benefits, but you’re arguing that they don’t deserve the Medicaid benefits. Is that right?

LAWLER: Like I said, the objective is to protect these vital programs for eligible recipients. But if people are gaming the system, no, they should not be receiving benefits, you know. And certainly, for able-bodied adults – they should be working.

That was Mike Lawler on NPR yesterday. He has been saying this for months, trying to counter the narrative from some that he “wants to put millionaires over Medicaid.” His general response to that accusation is to brand the accusers as lying radicals, then insist that he “will never cast a vote that takes Medicaid away from eligible recipients who rely on this vital program.”

Here’s a classic Lawler performance on the topic:

As Michael Ian Black, the co-host of that segment, later wrote: “I have a hard time forgiving lying done in the name of personal ambition and moral cowardice. Mike Lawler lied to my face, and he lied to yours. He does not deserve to remain a public servant.”

Part of the game for Lawler here is the word “eligible.” Lawler logic holds that if you first change the eligibility requirements, so millions are no longer eligible, you’re not taking Medicaid away from eligible recipients, because they’re not eligible. Got it, you lying radical? Lawler is working off of the GOP playbook on Medicaid. As one Republican consultant put it:

“A lot of times Republicans get wrapped around the axle having to win every single point. Play to a draw and muddy the waters. I think that is what Republicans should do on Medicaid.”

The hundreds of billions in savings that will flow from cutting Medicaid will indeed be used to fund tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich. Explicitly so. Note House Speaker Mike Johnson’s suggestion on Wednesday that making Medicaid cuts kick in even sooner than originally proposed would help pay for a higher cap on State and Local Tax Deductions (SALT). If you’ve been reading Rule of Lawler, you know that SALT is Lawler’s marquee issue, and that the higher SALT cap will cost hundreds of billions, mostly for the benefit of the rich.

So yes, Mike Lawler wants to put millionaires over Medicaid. Perhaps you’re sympathetic to the thought that able-bodied individuals should have to work in order to receive Medicaid. If so, I encourage you to read analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and by KFF. “Evidence shows that much of the coverage loss due to work requirements would occur among people who work or should qualify for an exemption but nevertheless would lose coverage due to red tape.” We know this from the experience of work requirements already imposed in Arkansas.

If you want to dive even deeper, read “Cutting Medicaid to pay for low taxes on the rich is a terrible trade for American families,” from the Economic Policy Institute.

Beyond that, let’s consider Lawler’s emphasis on those who are “gaming the system” in order to receive critical healthcare coverage. Contrast with the wealthy who game the system every day to pad their bank accounts. Donald Trump has boasted for years about being smart because he games the tax system. It’s a sport for him.

“By one estimate, simply collecting unpaid federal income taxes from the top 1 percent of households would bring in some $175 billion a year. We could just about fill the entire poverty gap in America if the richest among us simply paid all the taxes they owed.”

This from the book Poverty, by America, by Matthew Desmond, which I highly recommend. Especially to Mike Lawler.

Instead, the GOP is gutting the IRS, dismantling enforcement of public corruption, ending enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and turning its head while Donald Trump cashes in on his Presidency.

Who are the real gamers here?

Dear Mike. Enough talk about those beneath the poverty line gaming the system. Stop spending your time over-engineering work requirements for the poor to discourage even those who are eligible from enrolling in Medicaid.

How about a focus on the fleecer-in-chief? And more emphasis on human requirements than work requirements, like affordable healthcare for all? What’s the plan there, Mike?