Senate Republicans Sneak Wild Rule Into Budget to Win Over Murkowski
The fate of the legislation on the centerpiece of the agenda of President Trump – the very unpopular social security net – “Big, beautiful bill” – can rest in the hands of the moderate republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
In recent days, the Senate has sought to buy Murkowski’s vote to win the Key Gop holdout on the bill, which would be potentially ruinous In the original state of Murkowski, not to say anything about the 49 others.
At the Court of Murkowski, the Senate exempted Alaska from a provision that changes more than the cost to administer the additional national aid program, or food coupons.
The Senate sought to add a version of the sculpture on Monday evening – which just included Alaska and Hawaii, obviously, as if it was not a cup for a single state – but it did not adopt the gathering of the Senate, which cannot have obtained a non -budgetary reconciliation which just requires a simple majority, rather than the 60 years which should not be a budget vote to break a budget.
Early Tuesday morning, however, the Senate Republicans managed to make the claporesque in the bill – by making it apply to the states with the highest error rates.
Several Democratic legislators expressed their disapproval of the bridge pot. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, for example, tweeted“The most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the republican bill: they have now proposed to delay snap cuts only for two years only for states with the highest error rates just to bury their aid for Alaska: AK, DC, FL, GA, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, or. They are rewarding errors.”
It is not known if it will be enough to win Murkowski’s vote. Republicans have not included other The arrangements to soften the pot – or, rather, make it less sour – such as that which would have increased the federal part of Medicaid expenditure for Alaska.
Summarize the absurdity of the situation rightly, journalist Sam Stein of the rampart Written on x: “So, fundamentally, the future of this bill comes down to knowing whether a senator (Murkowksi) feels sufficiently at ease so that she has protected her state from the worst parts of this bill than the 49 other states (give or take some) should endure?”
