Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Latest News

2 lone Republicans vote against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ as it heads to president’s desk

President Donald Trump’s agenda appeared on life support as defectors in the House GOP, for a time, appeared ready to torpedo it. But in the end, only two Republicans voted against the bill, and it’s now heading to the president’s desk.

Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., were the sole defectors against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill.’ House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., could only afford to lose three Republicans, given that no Democrat was willing to cross the aisle to support the $3.3 trillion megabill.

While he did vote to support the procedural hurdle to get the bill on the floor, Massie’s decision to vote against the bill was seemingly predetermined. He has continually argued that the colossal tax, border, defense and energy package would add trillions to the nation’s debt and do little to actually curb Washington’s spending addiction.

And he was not among the many conservatives who Trump and Republican leadership tried to pressure throughout the day on Wednesday, nor as the floor stayed open into early Thursday afternoon.

‘[Trump] reaches out every day on Twitter, reaching out with a million dollars of ads in my district with a picture of me and the Ayatollah,’ Massie said. ‘So, that’s the only sort of reaching out I’ve seen so far.’

While Trump did not directly single him out, the president did call on holdout Republicans to stop holding the bill hostage late Wednesday night, and declared on Truth Social that ‘MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT’S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!’

Trump had previously threatened Massie with a primary challenger, as he did with Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., before his retirement announcement, for defecting against the bill.

But senior White House officials told reporters on a call just after the bill passed that the president had not threatened a primary against lawmakers to earn their vote, and that lawmakers ‘well understand the President’s political power, and ultimately, they want his political power to be used for their benefit.’

Fitzpatrick had raised concerns about changes the Senate GOP had made to Medicaid reforms in the bill but had not publicly staked a position until the procedural vote.

He was the only ‘no’ vote on the rule, and that resistance carried into the final vote that ultimately saw House Republicans largely unify and pass the legislative behemoth.

Fitzpatrick said in a statement just minutes before the bill passed that he had voted to ‘strengthen Medicaid protections, to permanently extend middle class tax cuts, for enhanced small business tax relief, and for historic investments in our border security and our military,’ but that the Senate’s tweaks soured him to the bill.

‘However, it was the Senate’s amendments to Medicaid, in addition to several other Senate provisions, that altered the analysis for our PA-1 community,’ he said. ‘The original House language was written in a way that protected our community; the Senate amendments fell short of our standard.’

‘I believe in, and will always fight for, policies that are thoughtful, compassionate, and good for our community,’ he continued. ‘It is this standard that will always guide my legislative decisions.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

You May Also Like

Editor's Pick

On April 23, 1985, the Coca-Cola Company made one of the biggest mistakes in American business history: it changed the formula for Coca-Cola. Outraged...

Editor's Pick

In Risky Business: Why Insurance Markets Fail and What to Do About It (Yale University Press, 2023), economists Liran Einav (Stanford), Amy Finkelstein (MIT),...

Editor's Pick

Real gross domestic product rose at a revised 3.2 percent annualized rate in the third quarter versus a 0.6 percent rate of decline in...

Editor's Pick

After the final lecture of my Fall 2022 International Economic Policy course (an undergraduate offering meant to introduce non-economics majors to the economics of...



Disclaimer: impactofincome.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.