Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, talks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. D.C., in October. (Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press)

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, talks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. D.C., in October. (Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press)

Editorial: Senate Republicans make bigger mess of tax bill

Senate Republicans are using repeal of an Obamacare mandate to win votes for their tax reform bill.

By The Herald Editorial Board

We don’t remember any of this from “I’m Just a Bill,” the 1976 Schoolhouse Rock cartoon that followed a gravel-voiced singing piece of legislation from bill to law.

With Republicans in the U.S. House ready to vote on their version of tax reform legislation this week, Senate Republicans are preparing their tax cuts proposal for a committee vote. The legislation in both chambers is largely meant to slash the corporate tax rate from 35 percent down to 20 percent. The process is being hurried along so Congress can get the tax bill to the president’s desk before Christmas and give the Republicans at least one major piece of legislation signed into law before the end of the year.

But not content with a major rewrite of the U.S. tax code, Senate Republicans now are trying to make up for their failure to adopt a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, by shoehorning in a provision to the tax legislation that would end the ACA’s mandate that all Americans have health care coverage.

Along with further sabotaging the ACA — a sweetener for conservative members of Congress — this also would gain an estimated $330 billion in savings over the next decade, helping Republicans keep the cost of the tax cuts under $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. As explained in Sunday’s editorial on the House version of the tax cut package, that limit — which is what passes for fiscal conservatism now — was adopted to allow House and Senate to pass tax reform with a simple majority, avoiding the need for any buy-in from Democrats.

As with the ACA repeal’s demise in July, three GOP senators may stand in the way of the mandate repeal and, if it’s connected to it, the tax package: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John McCain of Arizona. The trio range from skeptical to noncommittal. A fourth Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has come out against the tax bill’s small business provisions. The bill can lose the support of only two Senate Republicans and still pass.

But Senate Republican leaders are offering a previously negotiated bipartisan bill as an enticement for the support of those senators and others.

As the ACA repeal lumbered toward failure this summer, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R- Tennessee, worked collaboratively on legislation to stabilize the insurance markets. That legislation, which has the support of at least 60 members of the Senate, is ready for a vote, but Democrats now are objecting to its use to ram through the tax bill and the insurance mandate.

While the tax reform bill and the ACA repeal need only a simple majority in the Senate for passage, the Alexander-Murray bill has to clear a 60-vote threshold, meaning at least eight Democrats would need to sign on. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said Democrats won’t support the legislation if it’s used to advance the tax package.

Murray, through a spokesman on Wednesday, didn’t go that far, but doesn’t want to see the bill she fought for used to advance the tax bill or weaken the ACA. In a press release the same day, Murray said the move was counter to the bipartisan effort she and Sen. Alexander led.

“Tacking Alexander-Murray onto the partisan Republican tax reform effort is like trying to put out a fire with penicillin. It will not do anything to help,” Murray said in a press release and in comments to the Senate health committee.

The bill was meant to address needed reforms to the ACA, and not cure the deprivation that would be caused by ending the insurance mandate, her spokesman said.

The $330 billion in savings from the mandate repeal would come from the federal government not having to subsidize as many policies through Obamacare, but it would also mean an estimated 13 million fewer Americans with coverage. Without the mandate, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that insurance premiums for many would increase by about 10 percent and not just for those with coverage through the ACA.

“What Senate Republicans are proposing now is the exact opposite and the wrong direction for families’ health and financial security,” Murray said.

And if last week’s elections are an indication, it’s not the direction many Americans want to see taken on health care or taxes. In the Nov. 7 Virginia gubernatorial race, won by the Democratic candidate by 9 points, 77 percent of voters said health care was their top issue. Voters in Maine passed a ballot measure to expand Medicaid in that state. Regarding Republican tax plans, a new Quinnipiac University poll found that only 25 percent of those polled approved, while 52 percent oppose the GOP proposals.

For the reasons outlined in Sunday’s editorial, the Republicans’ tax reform proposals, at the least, need more discussion and a bipartisan process. Even the limited review that Republicans have allowed in their rush for passage now shows that some 14 million families across the country, including 300,000 middle-class families in Washington state, according to Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, would see a tax increase rather than the tax cuts Republicans have promised.

If Republicans can’t pass a tax reform bill — an issue that was supposed to be in their wheelhouse — without having to offer incentives to conservative members of Congress who are keen to kill the ACA, then the divisions within the Republican Party are deeper than we thought.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Friday, Nov. 21

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau logo is seen through a window at the CFPB offices in Washington on Sept. 23, 2019. Employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were instructed to cease “all supervision and examination activity” and “all stakeholder engagement,” effectively stopping the agency’s operations, in an email from the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, on Saturday, Feb. 8, 2025. (Ting Shen/The New York Times)
Editorial: Keep medical debt off credit score reporting

The federal CFPB is challenging a state law that bars medical debt from credit bureaus’ consideration.

Schwab: Release the files? Sure; Trump has nothing to hide.

The man’s an open book. And scandals that would destroy others’ political lives are a MAGA selling point.

Few seem to understand property taxes, Port of Everett included

Regarding the Nov. 13 front-page article about the Port of Everett’s 2026… Continue reading

Protect access and conservation of our public lands

I am one of millions of Americans who love our nation’s public… Continue reading

Won’t somone explain tariffs to Trump?

To borrow from the caption for The Herald Editorial Board’s Nov. 15… Continue reading

No Kings rally: Kids say darndest things

At Snohomish’s very large and very peaceful No Kings rally there was… Continue reading

A model of a statue of Billy Frank Jr., the Nisqually tribal fishing rights activist, is on display in the lobby of the lieutenant governor's office in the state Capitol. (Jon Bauer / The Herald.
Editorial: Recognizing state history’s conflicts and common ground

State officials seek consensus in siting statues of an Indian rights activist and a missionary.

FILE — President Donald Trump and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick display a chart detailing tariffs, at the White House in Washington, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The Justices will hear arguments on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025 over whether the president acted legally when he used a 1977 emergency statute to unilaterally impose tariffs.(Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times)
Editorial: Public opinion on Trump’s tariffs may matter most

The state’s trade interests need more than a Supreme Court ruling limiting Trump’s tariff power.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, Nov. 20

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: Trump’s $2,000 tariff rebates are a shell game

Most Americans have already paid $1,800 in price increases from the tariffs. It’s another distraction.

Comment: If Trump cares about affordability, he must show it

It will take more than reducing tariffs on a few items; he must show he understands consumers’ pain.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.