2025: Schweikert Cast The Deciding Vote For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump's Tariffs Through September 2025. In March 2025, Schweikert voted for, "adoption of the rule (H Res 313) that would provide for floor consideration of the Senate amendment to the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). The rule would provide up to one hour of debate on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the measure. It also would block the expedited consideration of joint resolutions terminating President Donald Trump's tariff actions under the April 2 executive order by providing that each day during the period from April 9, 2025 through Sept. 30, 2025, will not constitute a calendar day under the federal law pertaining to terminating national emergencies." The vote was on the rule. The underlying legislation was the FY 2025 budget resolution. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 216 to 215. [House Vote 94, 4/9/25; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 313;Congressional Actions, H.Con. Res. 14]
Speaker Johnson Backed The Move, Claiming Trump Has "Executive Authority" And That The Tariffs Are "In The Interest Of The American People." According to ABC News, "House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., defended the move, telling reporters, 'I've made it very clear I think the president has executive authority. It's an appropriate level of authority to deal with the unfair trade practices. That's part of the role of the president is to negotiate with other countries.' Johnson said Trump told him Tuesday night that 'there are almost 70 countries that are [in] some stage in negotiation of more fair-trade agreement agreements with the United States. I think that is in the interest of the American people. I think that is an 'America First' policy that will be effective, and so we have to give them the space to do it.'" [ABC News, 4/9/25]
The Vote Was The Second Use Of The Procedural Tactic To Block Votes On The Tariffs, The First Use Of It Being In March. According to ABC News, "House Democrats, led by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., moved to force a vote on Tuesday on terminating the national emergency authority and blocking Trump's sweeping tariffs. Now, that vote is unlikely to occur. This is the second time Johnson has moved to stop the legislative calendar to prevent votes on Trump's authority on tariffs. Under House rules, these votes would typically come up within 15 calendar days but now will not if the 'rule' passes during the vote series Wednesday afternoon." [ABC News, 4/9/25]
2025: Schweikert Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump's Tariffs. In March 2025, Schweikert voted for, "the bill that would provide for Congressional disapproval of, and nullify, a December 2024 IRS rule related to gross proceeds reporting by brokers involved in digital asset sales. The rule imposed reporting requirements, beginning in 2027, on non-custodial barkers who participate in the decentralized digital asset market. It also required brokers to file information returns and provide payee statements reporting gross proceeds from certain digital asset sales and transactions." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 292 to 132. [House Vote 71, 3/11/25; Congressional Quarterly, 3/11/25; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 25]
The Bill Effectively Blocked The House From Voting To Reverse Trump's Tariffs On Mexico, Canada, And China For The Next Year. According to the New York Times, "Republican leaders on Tuesday slipped language into a procedural measure that would prevent any resolution to end the tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China from receiving a vote this year. It passed on party lines as part of a resolution that cleared the way for a vote later Tuesday on a government spending bill needed to prevent a shutdown at the end of the week." [New York Times, 3/11/25]
The Bill Nullified A Law That Would Allow The House And Senate To End A Disaster Declared By The President. According to the New York Times, "In this case, Republican leaders did so using a particularly unusual contortion: They essentially declared the rest of the year one long day, nullifying a law that allows the House and Senate to jointly put an end to a disaster declared by the president." [New York Times, 3/11/25]
Democrats Previously Planned To Force Votes On The Tariffs Under The National Emergencies Act. According to the New York Times, "House Democrats had planned to force a vote on resolutions to end the tariffs on Mexico and Canada, a move allowed under the National Emergencies Act, which provides a mechanism for Congress to terminate an emergency like the one Mr. Trump declared when he imposed the tariffs on Feb. 1. That would have forced Republicans --- many of whom are opposed to tariffs as a matter of principle --- to go on the record on the issue at a time when Mr. Trump's commitment to tariffs has spooked the financial markets and spiked concerns of reigniting inflation." [New York Times, 3/11/25]
The National Emergencies Act Required Consideration Of Resolutions Ending A Presidentially Declared Emergency Within Fifteen Calendar Days But Republican Leadership Included A Measure In The Bill Declaring The Rest Of The Year Did Not Constitute A Calendar Day. According to the New York Times, "The national emergency law lays out a fast-track process for Congress to consider a resolution ending a presidential emergency, requiring committee consideration within 15 calendar days after one is introduced and a floor vote within three days after that. But the language House Republicans inserted in their measure on Tuesday declared that, 'Each day for the remainder of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day' for the purposes of the emergency that Mr. Trump declared on Feb. 1." [New York Times, 3/11/25]
2025: Schweikert Effectively Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump's Tariffs Through September 2025. In March 2025, Schweikert voted for, "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 313) that would providing for floor consideration of the Senate amendment to the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). The rule would provide up to one hour of debate on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the measure. It also would block the expedited consideration of joint resolutions terminating President Donald Trump's tariff actions under the April 2 executive order by providing that each day during the period from April 9, 2025 through Sept. 30, 2025, will not constitute a calendar day under the federal law pertaining to terminating national emergencies." The vote was on the previous question. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 217 to 212. [House Vote 93, 4/9/25; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 313]
2025: Schweikert Effectively Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump's Tariffs Through March 2026. In September 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, "the resolution [that] would allow for the tolling (the pausing of counting) of days for resolutions of inquiry from Sept. 30, 2025 through March 31, 2026. It also would provide that each day during the period from April 9, 2025, through March 31, 2026. would not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution to terminate President Donald Trump's April 2, 2025 executive order declaring a national emergency regarding tariffs on imported goods. The resolution also would provide that during the period for March 11, 2025 through March 31, 2026, would not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency executive order declared by President Trump on Feb. 1, 2025. Such an executive order concerned tariffs on many Canadian and Mexican imports and Chinese goods. The resolution also would provide that the provisions of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act would not apply through March 31, 2026 to a joint resolution terminating the national emergency." The vote was on the rule. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 213 to 211. [House Vote 268, 9/16/25; Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 707;Congressional Actions, H.Con. Res. 14]
2025: Schweikert Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Million In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, Increased The SALT Deduction To $40,000, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the "motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000." The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
The Bill Would Reduce Medicaid And Children's Health Insurance Program Funding By $1 Trillion And Remove 10.5 Million People From The Programs By 2034. According to the Center For American Progress, "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the OBBBA will cut federal spending on Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits by $1.02 trillion, due in part to eliminating at least 10.5 million people from the programs by 2034." [Center For American Progress, 7/3/25]
The Bill Would Decrease Access To Home And Community Based Services, Only Including Enough Funding To Cover Care For 27 People In Each State. According to the Center For American Progress, "The OBBBA creates a new category in 1915(c) HCBS waivers that will cover people who do not meet the existing requirement of needing an institutional level of care to receive HCBS. States would be allowed to apply to access this funding as long as their proposed program does not increase the average HCBS wait times for people who meet the need for institutional care. In order to implement this additional category, the federal government will provide $50 million in fiscal year 2026 and $100 million in fiscal year 2027. In 2020, average Medicaid per capita spending on HCBS was $36,275. Yet in the first year of the bill's new HCBS waiver, funds from the bill would only be able to cover HCBS costs for about 27 people per state---without accounting for overhead spending or inflation. Moreover, states will be contending with massive federal funding losses due to the bill's Medicaid cuts, which will likely lengthen wait times for HCBS, making them ineligible to establish the new category at all." [Center For American Progress, 7/3/25]
The Bill Established A Medicaid Work Requirement That Would Effectively Cause Eligible People To Lose Coverage Due To Burdensome Paperwork. According to the Center For American Progress, "Indeed, only 8 percent of recipients between the ages of 19 and 64 who weren't on SSI or SSDI in 2023 '[weren't] working due to retirement, inability to find work, or other reason[s].' Those who were not working were statistically more likely to be older women who left the workforce to care for aging parents or children. The OBBBA requires individuals to prove that they are working, engaging in community service, or receiving work training for at least 80 hours per month---or that they are enrolled in school part time---unless they qualify for an exemption. Medicaid enrollees who are trying to find a job, are having difficulty finding employment, or who lack reliable transportation to work would be penalized under this requirement. That includes at least more than 2.6 million adults with disabilities who don't have SSI or SSDI and have difficulty working due to disability or illness. Research indicates that paperwork requirements such as those in the bill---particularly for Medicaid---don't increase employment rates and often increase overhead costs. A group of researchers evaluated the first year of paperwork reporting requirements in Arkansas and found that there was a significant loss of Medicaid coverage in the initial six months among eligible people and no significant change in employment." [Center For American Progress, 7/3/25]
The Bill's $50 Billion In Rural Hospital Relief Funding Would Not Come Close To The Gap Created By Medicaid Cuts, With 300 Rural Hospital At "Immediate Risk" Of Closure. According to the Center For American Progress, "The OBBBA includes $50 billion in relief funding for rural hospitals over a five-year period to help reduce the disastrous impacts of the bill's roughly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. As of May 2025, there were approximately 2,086 rural hospitals receiving $12.2 billion a year in net revenue from Medicaid. At the median, rural hospitals' revenue from Medicaid is $3.9 million a year. Rural hospitals have some of the lowest operating margins in the nation, especially compared with urban hospitals, meaning that any reductions in revenue could lead to closures. The average operating margin for rural hospitals was 3.1 percent in 2023, with 44 percent of rural hospitals operating with negative margins. As a result, more than 300 rural hospitals are currently at 'immediate risk' of closure, especially now that the OBBBA is projected to cut Medicaid spending by $1.02 trillion. The relief fund designed to blunt the negative impacts caused by the bill would not come close to filling that gap. If every rural hospital in the country received an even share of the $50 billion in relief support, it would amount to only $4.5 million every year for five years. At the close of those five years, that funding would disappear altogether." [Center For American Progress, 7/3/25]
The Bill Prohibited Final Rules That Would Have Increased Access To Medicare Savings Programs For Very Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries, Eliminated Medicare Eligibility For People With Lawful Immigration Status, And Cut Medicare Funding By $490 Billion Between 2027 and 2034. "The OBBBA prohibits the implementation of two finalized rules until October 1, 2034. The rules would have made it easier for very low-income Medicare enrollees to access Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs), which help cover premiums and cost-sharing for their Medicare benefits. This will disproportionately affect disabled people, as they are more likely to have lower incomes than nondisabled people. Second, the bill eliminates Medicare eligibility for people with lawful immigration status who have already paid into the program. Lastly, according to the CBO, absent future congressional action, the bill will trigger $490 billion in cuts to Medicare from 2027 to 2034 due to the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010." [Center For American Progress, 7/3/25]
The Bill Could Leave Up To 16 Million People Uninsured, With The Disabled And Other Vulnerable Populations Facing The Brunt Of The Impact. According to the Center For American Progress, "Approximately 16 million people could end up uninsured due to the OBBBA, causing massive disruptions in health care. Congress is making historic cuts to essential services to give tax cuts to the wealthy. And disabled people and other vulnerable communities will likely bear the greatest burden." [Center For American Progress, 7/3/25]
22.3 Million Families Would Lose Some Or All Of Their SNAP Benefits, With 5.3 Million Families Losing Over $25 In Benefits A Month And Of Those Families, The Average Loss In Benefits Would Be $146. According to the Urban Institute, "Our preliminary estimates of the SNAP policies in the Senate bill show the following: 22.3 million US families would be affected, losing some or all of their SNAP benefits. Of the total affected families, 5.3 million would lose at least $25 in SNAP benefits per month. Among these families, 3.3 million are families with children, 3.5 million are working families, and 1.7 million are families with a full-time full-year worker. Families losing at least $25 per month would lose $146 per month on average ($1,752 for a full-year recipient). At the state level, average monthly benefit losses for families losing at least $25 per month would range from $72 in Kansas ($864 annually) to $231 in the District of Columbia ($2,772 annually)." [Urban Institute, 7/2/25]
States That Cannot Afford To Pay The New Mandated SNAP Cost Shares May Cut The Program Entirely. According to CNBC, "Additionally, the legislation requires states to pay for a portion of benefit costs, ranging from 5% to 15%, if their payment error rate is at or over 6%. The error rates measure the accuracy of states' eligibility and benefit payments. In fiscal year 2024, states had a 10.9% average payment error rate, with many states over 6%, according to the Department of Agriculture. States that can't pay those shares may have to cut SNAP benefits or opt out of the program entirely, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities." [CNBC, 7/10/25]
Every SNAP Dollar Spent Generates $1.54 In Revenue For Local Economies. According to CNBC, "Every dollar spent on SNAP generates $1.54 in benefit for local economies, according to 2019 research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service." [CNBC, 7/10/25]
Research Suggested The SNAP Cuts Would Result In 93,000 Premature Deaths. According to the Leonard Davis Institute Of Health Economics, "Peer-reviewed research from other investigators has quantified the mortality rate of individuals under age 65 with SNAP as compared to a similar group without SNAP over a fourteen-year period.4 Assuming a similar risk profile as prior SNAP participants, if we apply that estimate to the 3.2 million Americans projected to lose SNAP benefits under the bill, that would result in 93,000 premature deaths due to the loss of SNAP between now and 2039." [Leonard Davis Institute Of Health Economics, 7/3/25]
The Bill Included A 100% Tax Write Off For Private Jets. According to CNBC, "The new federal spending bill is expected to boost sales of private jets, as owners take advantage of faster write-offs of the purchase price. Jet brokers and advisors said they've seen a burst of activity from clients who were holding off on purchases until the bill was signed. Among its many new tax provisions is the reinstatement of 'bonus depreciation,' which allows businesses to immediately write off 100% of the purchase price of capital equipment, including private jets. Individuals, who typically own a jet through their private business or holding company, can now write off the entire cost of a new or used jet in the first year of ownership for any plane placed into service in or after Jan. 19, 2025. The tax benefit only applies to business jets, not jets used for personal use. It revives a provision of the 2017 tax cuts and replaces the current phased-out depreciation percentages of 60% in 2024 and 40% in 2025." [CNBC, 7/14/25]
71,000 People In Schweikert's District Rely On Medicaid Or CHIP. [Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, accessed 5/06/25]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The American Health Care Act That Which Would Result In 23 Million Fewer Americans With Health Insurance By 2026. In May 2017, Schweikert voted for the American Health Care Act which would have significantly repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act by cutting Medicaid, cutting taxes on the rich, removing safeguard for pre-existing conditions and defunding Planned Parenthood. The overall legislation would have in part, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "ma[d]e extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would [have], in 2020, convert[ed] Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide[d] fixed federal payments to states and end[ed] additional federal funding for the 2010 law's joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. It would prohibit federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. [...] It would [have] allow[ed] states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217 to 213. The bill, in modified forms, died in the Senate. [House Vote 256, 5/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/17; Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
Legislation Would Result In 14 Million Additional Uninsured Americans In 2018, Rising To 23 Million In 2026. According to the New York Times, "A bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act that narrowly passed the House this month would leave 14 million more people uninsured next year than under President Barack Obama's health law --- and 23 million more in 2026, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. Some of the nation's sickest would pay much more for health care. Under the House bill, the number of uninsured would be slightly lower, but deficits would be somewhat higher, than the budget office estimated before Republican leaders made a series of changes to win enough votes for passage. Beneath the headline-grabbing numbers, those legislative tweaks would bring huge changes to the American health care system." [New York Times, 5/24/17]
Legislation Would Cut Medicaid By $834 Billon Over The Next Ten Years, Including A Roll Back Of The Medicaid Expansion. According to the New York Times, "The House repeal bill was approved on May 4 by a vote of 217 to 213, with no support from Democrats. It would eliminate tax penalties for people who go without health insurance and roll back state-by-state expansions of Medicaid, which have provided coverage to millions of low-income people. And in place of government-subsidized insurance policies offered exclusively on the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces, the bill would offer tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 a year, depending on age. [...] The bill would reduce projected spending on Medicaid, the program for low-income people, by $834 billion over 10 years, and 14 million fewer people would be covered by Medicaid in 2026 --- a reduction of about 17 percent from the enrollment expected under current law, the budget office said." [New York Times, 5/24/17]
Legislation Repealed The Individual Mandate And The Medicaid Expansion Over Time And Replaced Subsidies With Tax Credits Worth $2,000 To $4,000 For Health Insurance Based On Age. According to the New York Times, "The House repeal bill was approved on May 4 by a vote of 217 to 213, with no support from Democrats. It would eliminate tax penalties for people who go without health insurance and roll back state-by-state expansions of Medicaid, which have provided coverage to millions of low-income people. And in place of government-subsidized insurance policies offered exclusively on the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces, the bill would offer tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 a year, depending on age. A family could receive up to $14,000 a year in credits. The credits would be reduced for individuals making more than $75,000 a year and families making more than $150,000." [New York Times, 5/24/17]
Legislation Replaced The Individual Mandate With A Potential 12 Month 30 Percent Premium Surcharge For Those Who Are Without Coverage For Longer Than 63 Days. According to Vox, "Unlike Obamacare, the AHCA does not mandate that all Americans be covered by health insurance or pay a fee. It repeals the individual mandate, which was one of Obamacare's least popular provisions. Instead, it has a different way of penalizing people who decide to remain uninsured: requiring those who don't maintain 'continuous coverage' to pay a hefty fine when they want to reenter the insurance market. This continuous coverage policy has shown up a lot in Republican replacement plans. It was part of Speaker Ryan's A Better Way proposal and Rep. Tom Price's Empowering Patients First Act. Here's how it works: If a worker goes straight from insurance at work to her own policy, her insurer has to charge her a standard rate --- it can't take the cost of her condition into account. But if said worker had a lapse in coverage longer than 63 days --- perhaps she couldn't afford a new plan between jobs --- and went to the individual market later, insurers could charge her a 30 percent premium surcharge. She would need to pay that higher premium for a full year before returning to the standard rate." [Vox, 5/4/17]
Legislation Would Allow Insurance Companies Charge Premiums Of Five To One, Instead Of Three To One, For Older To Younger Customers. According to the CBO, "Relaxing the current-law requirement that prevents insurers from charging older people premiums that are more than three times larger than the premiums charged younger people in the nongroup and small-group markets. Unless a state sets a different limit, H.R. 1628 would allow insurers to charge older people five times more than younger ones beginning in 2018." [CBO, 5/24/17]
Legislation Would Allow States To Seek A Waiver On Insurance Requirements. According to the Washington Post, "Congressional analysts concluded that one change to the House bill aimed at lowering premiums, by allowing states to opt out of some current insurance requirements, would encourage some employers to maintain coverage for their workers and get younger, healthier people to buy plans on their own. But those gains would be largely offset by consumers with preexisting conditions, who would face higher premiums than they do now." [Washington Post, 5/24/17]
About 1/6 OF Americans Would Live In States Receiving Insurance Waivers On Consumer Protections; These Markets Would Eventually Destabilize. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The House bill would be particularly harmful to older, sicker residents of states that waive key consumer protections in the current law, including the ban on insurers charging sick consumers more. The budget office estimates that about one-sixth of the U.S. population live in states that would seek such waivers, which would be allowed under the House bill. 'Over time, it would become more difficult for less healthy people (including people with preexisting medical conditions) in those states to purchase insurance,' the report notes." [Los Angeles Times, 5/24/17]
Premiums Would Drop In Some States, But Would Be Driven By Insurance With Fewer Benefits, Likely Driving Up Consumer Costs For Sicker Americans Such As Increased Costs For Pregnancy, Mental Health And Substance Abuse. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The budget office projected that average premiums for those who buy their own coverage would be lower in some states after 2020 than under Obamacare, an estimate quickly hailed by Republicans. [...] But the decrease would be driven largely driven by the fact that more people would have plans that cover fewer benefits and shift more costs to consumers, budget analysts wrote. Healthier consumers 'would be able to purchase nongroup insurance with relatively low premiums,' the budget office said. But skimpier plans with high deductibles would be particularly problematic for Americans facing high medical needs. 'Some people enrolled in nongroup insurance would experience substantial increases in what they would spend on healthcare,' the report notes. Out-of-pocket costs for pregnancy, mental health and substance abuse would likely 'increase by thousands of dollars' for people in some states, the budget office said." [Los Angeles Times, 5/24/17]
CBO: States That Opt Out Of Community Rating Protections Would Lead To Sick Americans Being Priced Out Of The Insurance Market. According to the CBO, "Community-rated premiums would rise over time, and people who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all---despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628 to help reduce premiums. As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs. That instability would cause some people who would have been insured in the nongroup market under current law to be uninsured." [CBO via Vox, 5/24/17]
A 64 Year Old American Earning $26,500 Annually Would See Their Annual Premium Increase From $1,700 To $13,600 In Waiver States. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Older and poorer Americans would also see higher premiums or lose coverage altogether. For example, under the House bill, a 64-year-old single American with an income of $26,500 a year would see his or her annual insurance bill jump from $1,700 to $13,600 in states that waive protections now mandated by Obamacare, according to the budget office. By contrast, a similar consumer who is 21 would see his or her premiums decrease from $1,700 to $1,250, budget analysts projected." [Los Angeles Times, 5/24/17]
Legislation Cut Taxes By $662 Billion, Mostly For The Wealthy. According to Vox, "The House bill would also cut taxes by $662 billion over the next decade, according to a separate analysis released Wednesday by the Joint Committee on Taxation, mostly by repealing Obamacare taxes on the wealthy and health care industries." [Vox, 5/24/17]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For $1.5 Trillion In Health Care Programmatic Cuts, Including Medicaid. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for the House GOP FY 2018 budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would provide for $3.2 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018, not including off-budget accounts. It would assume $1.22 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2018. It would assume the repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul law. It also would propose reducing spending on mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and changing programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as food stamps). It would call for restructuring Medicare into a 'premium support' system beginning in 2024. I would also require the House Ways and Means Committee to report out legislation under the budget reconciliation process that would provide for a revenue-neutral, comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. tax code and would include instructions to 11 House committees to trigger the budget reconciliation process to cut mandatory spending. The concurrent resolution would assume that, over 10 years, base (non-Overseas Contingency Operations) discretionary defense spending would be increased by a total of $929 billion over the Budget Control Act caps and non-defense spending be reduced by $1.3 trillion." The vote was on passage. The House passed the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 206. A modified version was later agreed to by both the House and the Senate. [House Vote 557, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]