Destroy the Economy
In this section of our journey through the conservative hellscape, we'll examine how Project 2025 plans to gut economic protections and healthcare access for vulnerable Americans. This isn't just policy – it's class warfare dressed up in bureaucratic language, designed to transfer wealth and power from ordinary Americans to corporate interests and the wealthy elite.
Healthcare For The Rich
"The next Administration should deconstruct the federal healthcare bureaucracy... by rescinding... Obamacare regulations." (p. 507)
Let's cut through the bullshit – this isn't about "freedom" or "efficiency." This is about taking a chainsaw to healthcare protections that millions of Americans depend on. Rescinding Obamacare regulations means stripping protections for pre-existing conditions, eliminating essential health benefits, and slashing subsidies that make insurance affordable for working families. It's not reform; it's sabotage.
Who gets their healthcare ripped away? People with pre-existing conditions who would be uninsurable in the pre-ACA market. Low-income families who depend on subsidies. Young adults covered by their parents' plans. Women who need maternity care. Mental health patients who finally gained coverage parity. This isn't about improving healthcare; it's about returning to a system where insurance companies, not patients and doctors, decided who got care.
Why does Vought push this healthcare demolition? Because the conservative movement has convinced itself that healthcare is a privilege for those who can afford it, not a right for all Americans. They don't care that millions would lose coverage and thousands would die prematurely – they care about ideological purity and serving insurance company donors. It's not governance; it's sacrifice of human lives on the altar of free-market fundamentalism.
Remove Medicare and Medicaid
"States should be given the freedom to design benefits and establish eligibility criteria... to maintain program integrity." (p. 569)
Translation: Let's gut healthcare for the elderly, disabled, and poor under the guise of "state flexibility." This innocuous-sounding proposal would transform Medicare and Medicaid from guarantees of care into block grants that states could restrict at will. It's not reform; it's abandonment of our most vulnerable citizens.
Who gets their healthcare slashed? Poor children whose states decide to tighten eligibility. Disabled Americans whose benefits get deemed "optional." Elderly nursing home residents whose care becomes unaffordable. This approach would create a patchwork system where your access to healthcare depends on which state you live in – with red states racing to cut benefits to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.
Vought champions this cruelty because the conservative movement sees safety net programs not as vital protections but as targets for budget cuts. They don't care that these programs keep millions from poverty and premature death – they care about shrinking government, even when that means abandoning the most vulnerable. It's not governance; it's fiscal brutality disguised as federalism.
Stop Consumer Financial Projection
"The CFPB should be eliminated or, failing that, substantially reformed." (p. 470)
Let's be clear about what this means: unleashing predatory financial practices on American consumers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created specifically to protect ordinary Americans from the kind of financial exploitation that triggered the 2008 economic collapse. Eliminating it would give banks and lenders free rein to mislead, overcharge, and exploit consumers without consequence.
Who gets financially exploited? Service members targeted by predatory lenders. Homebuyers misled by deceptive mortgage terms. Students drowning in loans with hidden fees. Elderly Americans falling victim to financial scams. This isn't just about abstract regulations – it's about real people losing their savings, homes, and financial security to corporate predators.
Why does Vought push this deregulation? Because the conservative movement has prioritized protecting corporate profits over protecting consumers. They don't care that financial predation devastates families and communities – they care about removing "burdensome" regulations that cut into corporate bottom lines. It's not governance; it's selling out ordinary Americans to serve Wall Street donors.
Destroy Unions and Workers Rights
"The NLRB should return to a policy of requiring unions to show majority support through secret ballots." (p. 346)
Don't be fooled by the democratic-sounding "secret ballots" language – this is about making it nearly impossible for workers to unionize. This policy change would expose workers to intimidation, delay tactics, and corporate anti-union campaigns that have been perfected over decades. It's not about worker choice; it's about employer dominance.
Who gets their economic power stripped? Factory workers trying to secure living wages. Warehouse employees fighting for safer conditions. Office workers seeking protection from harassment. This approach would further tilt the already-uneven playing field against workers trying to exercise their right to organize for better conditions.
Vought champions this anti-worker agenda because the conservative movement sees organized labor as a threat to corporate power. They don't care that unions raise wages for all workers, reduce inequality, and improve workplace safety – they care about keeping workers powerless and divided. It's not governance; it's class warfare from above.
Destroy Food Stamps
"The next Administration should remove able-bodied adults without dependents... from SNAP if they are not working." (p. 404)
Let's call this what it is: taking food from hungry Americans based on a cruel, false narrative about "dependency." This policy ignores the reality that many SNAP recipients already work but in jobs with insufficient hours or wages to make ends meet. Others face barriers to employment like lack of transportation, mental health challenges, or living in job-scarce regions. This isn't about promoting work; it's about punishing poverty.
Who goes hungry? Low-wage workers with unpredictable schedules. Rural Americans in job-scarce regions. People with undiagnosed disabilities or health conditions. Those struggling to find work after incarceration. This approach treats hunger as a motivational tool rather than a problem to solve.
Why does Vought push this cruelty? Because the conservative movement has convinced itself that hunger is a choice rather than a consequence of systemic economic inequality. They don't care that food assistance is one of the most efficient, effective safety net programs – they care about enforcing a punitive morality that blames poor people for their poverty. It's not governance; it's cruelty masquerading as tough love.
Destroy HUD
"HUD should reform public housing... by encouraging participants to move away from long-term federal assistance." (p. 519)
Translation: Let's throw vulnerable families and elderly Americans into an unaffordable housing market and call it "self-sufficiency." This policy ignores the reality that housing costs have skyrocketed while wages have stagnated, making market-rate housing simply unattainable for millions of low-income Americans. This isn't about independence; it's about abandonment.
Who gets pushed toward homelessness? Elderly Americans on fixed incomes. Disabled individuals unable to work full-time. Single parents balancing childcare and low-wage jobs. This approach treats housing assistance not as a vital infrastructure investment but as a temporary charity that recipients should be ashamed to need.
Vought champions this housing insecurity because the conservative movement has convinced itself that poverty is a moral failing rather than an economic condition. They don't care that stable housing is fundamental to every other aspect of well-being – from education to employment to health. They care about cutting government spending, even when that means increasing homelessness. It's not governance; it's social darwinism dressed up as fiscal responsibility.
Abortion Pills Are Punishable by Death, Its Murder
"FDA should restore crucial safeguards to chemical abortion pills." (p. 511)
Let's cut the deceptive language: this isn't about "safeguards" – it's about making medication abortion inaccessible. Medication abortion has an extraordinary safety record, far safer than many common medications sold over the counter. The "safeguards" they want to "restore" are medically unnecessary restrictions designed specifically to limit access to safe, effective abortion care.
Who loses access to healthcare? Women in rural areas without nearby clinics. Low-income women who can't afford to travel or take time off work. Women in abusive relationships who need discreet healthcare options. This approach puts ideological control above medical expertise and women's autonomy.
Why does Vought push these restrictions? Because the conservative movement isn't actually concerned about safety – they're concerned about controlling women's bodies and reproductive choices. They don't care that restricting medication abortion forces women into more expensive, later procedures or dangerous self-managed attempts. They care about enforcing their religious views on women's healthcare, regardless of the human cost. It's not governance; it's theocracy in medical disguise.
This section of Project 2025 reveals a movement that's declared war on economic security and healthcare access for ordinary Americans. At every turn, they choose corporate profits over consumer protection, employer power over worker rights, and ideological purity over healthcare access. This isn't governance – it's a systematic assault on the economic foundations that allow working and middle-class Americans to live with dignity and security.
Russell Vought and his Heritage Foundation collaborators aren't offering solutions to real economic challenges – they're offering a return to a Dickensian past where the vulnerable have no protections, workers have no rights, and access to necessities like healthcare and housing depends on your wealth and status.
The throughline connecting these policies is clear: comfort for the comfortable, cruelty for the vulnerable. This isn't about economic efficiency or fiscal responsibility – it's about reinforcing a hierarchy where those with power and wealth are insulated from responsibility while those without are exposed to the harshest edges of unregulated capitalism.
This isn't conservatism – it's economic brutality dressed up in the language of freedom and choice. And if we don't recognize it for what it is, we risk returning to an America where economic security is a privilege for the few rather than a possibility for the many.
Heritage Foundation. (2023). Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. Washington, DC.]
Vought, R. (2023). The Road to Renewal: Reclaiming America's Greatness Through
Just saw a live Trump cabinet meeting on BBC. I believe the words “disjointed”, “anecdotal”, and “asskissing” would apply. All interspersed with Trump admiring himself. Sad!
Nazi