Dem
47
GOP
53
After voting for the BBB, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was confronted by a reporter who asked her about it. She had loudly opposed the bill before voting for it, so the reporter wanted to know: "How come?" She stared at him for at least 10 seconds and then went on about how agonizing the decision was but she had to do it. Actually, she was the deciding vote and didn't have to do it at all. She could have voted "no," then demanded (and gotten) many, many concessions before the next vote. She was clearly upset at being called out on her hypocrisy.
Since then, other reporters have confronted other senators who were wildly and loudly against the bill, but voted for it anyway. Turns out senators don't like it when a reporter shows the world what cowards they are.
One of the cowardly senators is Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), a self-proclaimed deficit hawk. He yelled about the cost of the BBB at length before the vote. He said it was a "big ol' grenade" and wasn't going to vote for it. Then he did. When asked about this, he said: "One of the reasons I decided to vote for this is I didn't want the bill to get more expensive. I wasn't asking for money for my vote. I was asking for nothing other than a commitment to reduce the deficit." So, let's examine this. He voted for a bill that increased the deficit by $3 trillion so it wouldn't increase the deficit more? Why didn't he and three other deficit hawks vote "no" and say they were not going to vote "yes" until the bill was changed to be deficit neutral, or better yet, to reduce the deficit? He also said Trump promised him another bill later that would deal with the deficit. But he knew very well that his leverage was maximum at the time of the vote. By voting "no" and getting three other senators to do so as well, he would be in a position to force the bill to be changed to reduce the deficit. Now Trump has probably already forgotten his promise. Oh, and Trump couldn't threaten to primary him in 2026 because he is not up in 2026. A true candidate for Profiles in Cowardice.
Next up is Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), another self-proclaimed deficit hawk. Before the vote, she repeatedly claimed the bill spent too much money and didn't address the deficit. So what was her fake excuse for voting for the bill? She said: "We didn't have a choice. You know it was a vote to extend the tax cuts or have them expire, which would have had a huge tax increase." Of course she had a choice. If she voted "no" along with Johnson and two others, they could have forced a rewrite of the bill to reduce the deficit. Actually, just letting the tax cuts expire would have made a huge dent in the deficit. But in reality, while she talks a good game about the deficit, she actually prioritizes cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires. By the way, her net worth is "only" $15 million, so why would she care about reducing taxes for rich people? Oh, and she said her constituents loved the bill. Actually, multiple polls show that it is wildly unpopular across every demographic.
The other senators who opposed the bill, such as Mike Lee (R-UT), a long-time deficit hawk, mostly caved. The only one who stuck to his guns was Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who opposes everything and votes accordingly. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voted against it because a "yes" vote would probably mean her demise in the 2026 election. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) also initially opposed it for electoral reasons, but then got tired of the whole sh**show that is Congress, announced his retirement, and voted "no" because his constituents so oppose the bill. Not a lot of heroes here. (V)