Granderson: Trump’s budget-cutters dangerously out of touch

A week before Halloween, during a virtual town hall event, Elon Musk told the audience “we have to reduce spending to live within our means.” He said this would involve “some temporary hardship, but it will ensure long-term prosperity.” Less than two weeks later, the world’s 10 richest people got $64 billion richer, with Musk collecting more than 40 percent of that.

I’m not hating on the player, just pointing out the game.

Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, whose net worth is estimated to be near $1 billion, will lead Donald Trump’s efforts to cut trillions from federal spending. I’m all for getting our spending under control, and I’m also for tax cuts. I just wonder if the top 0.01 percent have any idea what “temporary hardship” translates to for the 78 percent of Americans already living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Take, for instance, the picture of Musk joining members of Trump’s inner circle for some McDonald’s. For most of them, fast food is a change of pace. But for a lot of poor people, it’s what they can afford. From the perspective of a business owner, if many Americans can’t afford a healthy meal, that’s a “you problem.” However, in government, there are no “you problems” — only “our.” And we’ve got a lot of them.

There are an estimated 82 million Americans with preexisting conditions who have employer-based health insurance. You might think of cancer survivors or people living with a chronic disease such as diabetes or HIV. What if I told you obesity is a protected preexisting condition under the Affordable Care Act? What if I told you that by 2050 as many as 260 million Americans are projected to be overweight or obese? What if I told you that before that 2010 law, insurance companies could charge more to obese people? Or deny coverage altogether?

It was a real problem. And it would be again, immediately, if the Affordable Care Act were dismantled as Republicans hope.

The phrase “temporary hardships” hits different when that may include losing protections for preexisting conditions, doesn’t it? And remember: The people making the cuts aren’t living paycheck to paycheck or worried about losing their health insurance.

It’s no coincidence that many of the 10 fattest states in the country are also among the poorest. When those trillions in cuts come, will Trump remember that many of his voters need the federal government to help with health care because their states are too poor to do it on their own?

What will “temporary hardship” look like then?

One of the ways the country clawed out of the Great Depression was through the introduction of the U.S. Savings Bond program. By encouraging investing in America, the programs stemming from the New Deal not only had a source of revenue, but also stakeholders.

That was 1935.

Fast-forward 90 years, and we have the incoming Trump administration’s “Project 2025,” which promises a different relationship between the federal government and hurting Americans.

Musk and Ramaswamy are right that cuts are needed. They should be found by closing tax loopholes and corporate welfare, not by cutting the help given to the poor and the middle class.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this, which is why he encouraged Americans to invest in each other — and those safety nets have kept us whole for nearly a century. We don’t look so whole anymore: Today the poorest states all voted for Trump. The richest and healthiest states did not.

Guess which group will suffer most when safety nets are slashed.

Sure, Musk knows how to make himself rich. But does he know what “temporary hardship” would mean for most Americans? To the ones who eat fast food not for a photo op, but because that’s all they can afford?

LZ Granderson is an Opinion columnist for the Los Angeles Times.