Group Activity: Senate Passes “One Big Beautiful Bill”, Sends Back to House

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” has passed the US Senate after a tie-breaking vote from VP JD Vance, and is heading back to the House of Representatives.

From the Washington Post:

Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaking vote for the measure, which would extend trillions of dollars in tax cuts from Trump’s first term and implement new campaign promises — such as eliminating income taxes on tips and overtime wages — while spending hundreds of billions of dollars on immigration enforcement and defense.

To offset the cost, the legislation would cut about $1 trillion from Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income individuals and people with disabilities, and other health care programs. It would also cut SNAP, the anti-hunger Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. Nearly 12 million people will lose health care coverage if the bill becomes law, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The bruising battle to pass the bill split Senate Republicans, as some pressed for deeper spending reduction and other balked at the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and other programs. Three Republicans voted against the measure: Sens. Rand Paul (Kentucky), Thom Tillis (North Carolina) and Susan Collins (Maine).Vance arrived just after 6:30 a.m. and cast the deciding vote more than five hours later. Lawmakers spent nearly 48 consecutive hours, reading, debating and amending the legislation on the Senate floor.

“There will be a day that conservatives will rue the fact that some of them actually voted for this,” Paul said after the vote.

To reach the Oval Office, the bill must clear one more hurdle: the House, where many members have balked at the Senate’s changes to the measure. Trump has ordered lawmakers to have the bill on his desk by a self-imposed Independence Day deadline.

“Obviously, the probability of passage in the House is not an irrelevant consideration for the Senate,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota). “On the other hand, if we’re just going to do whatever the House wanted to, then we wouldn’t need two chambers.

“I think we’re going to find a sweet spot, remembering that by the time it goes over there, their tolerance for changes has clearly got to broaden, because it’s a binary choice at that point. And they either go the route of Thom Tillis, or they vote yes.”

Tillis abruptly announced Sunday that he would not seek another term next year after voting to block beginning debate on the measure — and drawing Trump’s ire online. His decision will force Republicans to defend an open seat in a swing state that Democrats are determined to pick up in the midterms.

Collins, a moderate up for reelection next year in a blue state, joined Tillis in opposing the bill, citing her concerns about Medicaid cuts. Paul, a deficit hawk, opposed it on different grounds — that it didn’t cut spending enough.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who expressed concerns about its Medicaid cuts, ultimately voted for it. The bill was loaded up with benefits for Alaska, including a special tax break for whaling captains.

Republicans declared their legislation would help the working-class voters who swept Trump to the White House and the GOP to unified control of Congress in November’s elections.

The bill increases the child tax credit and add a bonus to the standard deduction for seniors, a provision inspired by Trump’s campaign pledge to stop taxing Social Security benefits. It would also create savings accounts for newborns seeded with $1,000 of taxpayer money, and it would allow buyers of American-made cars to deduct up to $10,000 in car loan interest.

“This is delivering on President Trump’s promises. That’s the key,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri).

But beyond those populist flourishes, the measure is starkly regressive. The 10 percent of households with the lowest incomes would stand to be worse off by $1,600 on average because of benefits cuts, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the House version of the bill. The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes would be better off by $12,000 on average.

The legislation would make permanent a trio of corporate tax deductions that would make it easier for companies to invest in research and purchase new equipment.

Combined with the impact of Trump’s tariffs — which the White House has argued will help pay for the bill’s tax cuts and new spending — the bottom 80 percent of households would see their take-home incomes fall, according to the Yale Budget Lab.