- Cogent reasons to do so are presented by Quin Hillyer writing at the Washington Examiner (excerpts, bold emphasis ours)
- A twofer — tax reform and undermines Obamacare — the House bill not as effective
Yes, the House bill is better in some ways than the Senate bill. But the Senate bill is better in some ways – indeed, in more important ways – than the House bill.
The House of Representatives should accept the Senate-passed tax-reform bill as a bird in the hand and pass it exactly as is.
No conference committee. No amendments. No need to send a revised bill back to the Senate, and thus no risk of seeing some hard-won Senate votes fall away, dooming tax reform entirely. . . .
It makes absolutely no sense to risk another Senate vote. The whole edifice of reform could be undermined, and toppled, by the slightest change in its dimensions or its building materials.
Second, let’s understand that the Senate bill is a rather good bill. Like the House bill, it would cut the top corporate tax rate nearly in half, to 20 percent. Like the House bill, it would greatly simplify individual filing for most Americans and nearly double the standard deduction. Both bills immediately double the exclusion for estate taxes; both expand education tax credits; both of them at least reduce the burdens (to different extents) of the Alternative Minimum Tax, of taxes on international earnings, and of taxes on “pass-through” corporations (i.e., most small businesses).
If implemented, these would all be vast improvements over current law.
Yet the Senate bill is considerably better than the House bill in aspects that really make a difference. Its individual tax-rate structure, unlike a horrid House provision, does not include a “bubble rate” that effectively raises rather than lowers taxes on many earners. Its solution for pass-through businesses is far simpler than the House version and quite generous.
And, in a huge win for good government, it would repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate that is both bad policy and, no matter what Chief Justice John Roberts says, a constitutional atrocity. The House bill doesn’t touch the mandate.
Read about additional reasons in the entire article here.