The truth is: Republicans never had a plan to lower health care costs for Americans. Now, millions of families are set to see their premiums go through the roof come January.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Wisconsin
Tammy Baldwin
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 783
Yes30%
No70%
Present0%
Not Voting0%
Party align97%
Cross-party2%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Tammy Baldwin
U.S. SenatorDemocratWisconsin
SoupScore
Tammy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 43 sponsored · 268 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reminder: In the same year Republicans voted to give billionaires and big corporations a tax cut, they also voted to take away tax breaks that help working families afford their health care.
Maybe it’s because on top of the rising cost of groceries, housing, energy, and childcare, Donald Trump is also making healthcare significantly more expensive for millions of Americans.
As we mark the last day of Open Enrollment for health coverage starting Jan. 1st, many families are going onto healthcare.gov and seeing their costs double, triple, or even quadruple.
Make no mistake, this was the work of Donald Trump and congressional Republicans.
As families celebrate the first night of Hanukkah, my thoughts are with the impacted families in Australia and Jewish communities around the world, grieving the lives lost in another senseless act of hate.
This is exactly what I hear when I talk to Wisconsin farmers. They don’t want handouts; they just want a fair shake.
Trump’s “solution” to the problem he created isn’t going to cover the damage he is still doing. If the President wants to get serious about helping our farmers, he can start by ending his reckless trade war.
TOMORROW: Republicans will have to decide whether they are going to raise health care costs for millions of Americans or not.
I will be voting for lower costs for families.
Come January 1st, Wisconsinites like Anna in Rice Lake will be seeing their health care costs double. That’s right. But we still have time, and my Republican colleagues need to join me to stop this.
Republicans have had over a decade and a half to come up with a health care plan, and Americans have yet to see a single thing.
In less than a week, this price hike is going to be a reality for Kurt up in Onedia County if Republicans don’t join me in protecting critical health care tax breaks for working families.
Republicans have 2 choices:
1.) Let families keep tax breaks to afford health care
2.) Jack up health care costs for millions of Americans
I know where I stand, and it’s on the side of making sure people don’t go bankrupt just to afford the care they need.
To me, it doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, or an independent – I want you to have health care you can afford. My colleagues need to join me. The people who voted them in are crying out for help.
Parents in Wauwatosa know that just about everything is getting more expensive as Trump’s tariffs continue to jack up costs this holiday season. It's past time President Trump gets serious about lowering costs for families instead of making things worse.
Looks like the Grinch can take the holiday season off — Trump’s tariffs are stealing Christmas this year.
The Trump administration is defunding lifesaving research and putting cures on the back burner so they can give big corporations huge tax breaks.
We should be giving families hope, not billionaires another yacht or private jet.
This is the price hike that a father from Neenah will have to pay next year if Republicans keep going down this path and refuse to act. This is what thousands of Wisconsinites are bracing for.
The clock is almost up. Republicans and the President need to decide now whose side they are on: Are they going to lower costs for millions of families or be responsible for owning the price hike?
thehill.com/homenews/sen...
This is bad news for Wisconsin workers and Americans’ safety, and good news for China. We need some answers from the Navy. www.jsonline.com/story/news/2...
This guy was convicted of smuggling nearly a million pounds of cocaine. And President Trump is going to let him out of jail scot-free? C’mon.
So much for tough on drugs. This is an embarrassment to our rule of law, and Wisconsinites need some answers.
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/n...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History783 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
783 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-44) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-45) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.