Credited from: HUFFPOST
Senate Republicans have narrowly passed President Donald Trump’s ambitious tax reform and spending plan known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which is projected to cost around $4 trillion. The legislation passed with a vote of 51-50, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. The bill faced opposition from three Republican senators: Thom Tillis (N.C.), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Susan Collins (Maine), alongside all Democrats in the chamber, according to HuffPost, NPR, and Los Angeles Times.
The bill promises significant tax cuts primarily benefiting wealthier Americans while simultaneously proposing cuts to essential programs like Medicaid that cover health expenses for over 70 million individuals. Analysts from the Congressional Budget Office estimate that about 11 million people could lose their health insurance coverage as a consequence of the bill’s provisions, a major concern highlighted by healthcare executives and Democratic lawmakers alike, according to HuffPost, and NPR.
Support for the bill hinged on a last-minute campaign to convince key senators, particularly Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who was wavering until the vote. The Republicans faced significant pressure to reach a decision before the self-imposed July 4 deadline. Following the vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune stated, "With this legislation, we’re fulfilling the mandate we were entrusted with last November," as reported by HuffPost and Los Angeles Times.
The bill's passage through the Senate initiates a critical phase, requiring approval from the House of Representatives. Several House Republicans have already expressed dissatisfaction with the Senate's version of the bill and indicated potential objections, raising the possibility of a challenging vote ahead, according to HuffPost and NPR.
Critics have condemned the plan's potential impact on the national deficit, predicting it could increase the national debt by over $3 trillion in the next decade. This criticism is compounded by other concerns regarding substantial cuts to programs designed to assist lower-income and vulnerable populations, further fueling the controversy surrounding the legislation, as elaborated by HuffPost and Los Angeles Times.