LaMalfa's Voting Record: Taxes

How he voted: Yea

Bill Summary: Major overhaul of the tax code: large corporate tax cut (from 35% to 21%), temporary individual rate cuts, a near-doubling of the standard deduction, and a $10,000 cap on the State-and-Local-Tax (SALT) deduction.

Effects on LaMalfa's Constituents:

1. Higher long-run fiscal strain → fewer federal resources: The TCJA substantially added to federal deficits (analysts estimate $1–2 trillion through 2027, with a larger impact over longer windows). That persistent deficit pressure makes Congress more likely to cut federal programs—such as Medicaid, rural health grants, wildfire relief, and agricultural support—that Northern California communities rely on.  
2. Regressive benefits vs. local pain: While some households saw near-term tax cuts, the largest benefits flowed to corporations and higher-income households. Many lower-income and fixed-income residents in rural parts of CA-01 (older farmers, service workers) saw little lasting tax relief but face the risk of future spending cuts that directly affect them (healthcare, nutrition programs).
3. SALT cap hurts homeowning/district taxpayers (political/economic effect): The $10,000 SALT cap raised federal tax bills for middle-class homeowners in higher-tax states; although CA-01 is rural, many small business owners and property taxpayers in the state were still affected by SALT limits in ways that reduced local disposable income and investment.

National impact on the middle class:

1. Short-term, modest relief → long-term higher taxes: Individual cuts expire after 2025, while the corporate cuts are permanent. That means middle-income families receive a temporary benefit, followed by higher bills later, while large corporations retain their savings indefinitely.
2. Wealth inequality widened: The top 1% captured most of the law's value, while wage growth for ordinary workers lagged behind corporate stock buybacks and dividend payments.
3. Deficit pressure endangers programs used by most Americans: The law added ≈ $1.9 trillion to the debt (CBO), giving future Congresses justification to trim Social Security, Medicare, and public education—programs central to the middle class.

How he voted: Yea (supported repeal of specific ACA tax provisions). 

Bill Summary: Congressional vehicle to repeal or block tax provisions associated with the Affordable Care Act (e.g., changes to deductibility thresholds and other tax rules tied to healthcare reform).

Adverse and Risky Effects due to LaMalfa's Vote (for his constituents, the middle class, and the nation):

While the bill seems helpful on the surface, votes like LaMalfa's carry hidden or long-term tradeoffs. Here's how:

1. Reduced Revenue / Bigger Budget Deficits:Allowing a more generous medical deduction without offsetting revenue (or cuts elsewhere) reduces federal tax receipts. Over time, larger deficits require financing (borrowing) or cuts in other programs. The broader nation, rising deficits constrain future fiscal flexibility — meaning that critical programs (education, infrastructure, healthcare, social welfare) may face cuts, which harm the middle class and vulnerable populations.
2. Benefit Skewed to Higher Earners/Inequality: More generous deductions often benefit people with higher incomes (who have enough deductions to itemize). Middle-class taxpayers, especially those in rural districts, typically use the standard deduction and may not benefit significantly from the change.
   That means the bulk of the gain goes to those who are already better off, while many in the middle class or those with modest incomes gain little — exacerbating inequality.
3. Encouragement of More Medical Spending Over Efficiency: If the deduction is more generous, it can incentivize higher out-of-pocket medical consumption even where the marginal benefit is low, inflating costs in the system that everyone pays for (insurance premiums, hospital overhead).
   This can distort healthcare markets and push prices upward, which affects insurers and, in turn, the premiums of every family.
4. Deprivation of Offsets or Cuts That Might Hurt Essential Services: To balance revenue shortfalls, Congress might have to cut or restrain federal programs. That can mean fewer funds for rural hospitals, Medicaid reimbursements, public health initiatives, or emergency services in areas like Northern California.
   For LaMalfa's constituents (in rural, often underserved areas), reductions in healthcare safety nets, rural clinic funding, or health infrastructure are especially damaging.
5. Shifts in Tax Policy Priorities: This kind of vote signals a priority: tax relief for certain deductions rather than structural health or insurance reform. It can delay or disincentivize broader solutions (such as controlling drug prices and expanding coverage) that might help more people in the long run. Nationally, such piecemeal adjustments can perpetuate a tax-and-healthcare status quo that is inefficient and inequitable.
6. Marginal Benefit vs Opportunity Cost: The cost of restoring a favorable medical expense floor is high relative to the benefit for many people — some constituents with moderate medical costs will see modest gains. Still, the funds diverted might have yielded a greater return if invested in rural health clinics, mental health services, telehealth, or preventive care programs.
   In other words, the opportunity cost of that tax cut may be more harm than good for middle and lower-income people if the same funds could've been used for direct services.
    

LaMalfa was active, worked on, supported, and sponsored H.R. 1 

Bill Summary: A multi-topic bill framed to "lower energy costs" that included provisions to block or express congressional disapproval of proposed tax increases on oil & gas, streamline permitting for energy projects, and other changes favoring expanded fossil-fuel and energy infrastructure. LaMalfa also offered and won an amendment to allow certain wildfire mitigation activities to proceed with fewer environmental reviews.

Effects on LaMalfa's Constituents:

1. Prioritizes fossil fuel interests over long-term public health & transitions: Blocking tax or regulatory measures aimed at energy transition slows adoption of cleaner energy — prolonging local and regional air-quality problems during wildfire season and making the state more vulnerable to climate impacts that hit rural communities hard (ag producers, small towns). 
2. Short-term local benefits, long-term costs: Streamlined permitting can speed projects (jobs, investment), but also increase the risk of environmental damage to waterways and grazing/forest lands in Northern California—raising cleanup costs, reducing tourism or fisheries value, and increasing long-term public expenditures. 

 National impact on the middle class:

1. Short-term fuel benefit, long-term cost: Protecting fossil-fuel tax breaks can slightly delay price increases at the pump but perpetuates pollution, climate damage, and costly disasters that taxpayers ultimately pay for.
2. Missed economic transition: Curtailing incentives for renewables slows growth in new-energy jobs—often good-paying, middle-class positions—in favor of industries with shrinking employment footprints.

How he voted: Yea 

Bill Summary: 2025 budget/reconciliation package that (among many provisions) extended significant elements of the 2017 tax cuts, added new tax provisions favoring higher earners/corporations, raised the SALT cap in negotiations, and paired tax cuts with large cuts/changes to domestic safety-net programs (Medicaid, SNAP) in some versions. Became public law in July 2025.

Effects on LaMalfa's Constituents and the nation:

1. Shifts federal priorities away from vulnerable populations: Extending tax cuts for wealthy households while trimming federal safety-net and health programs harms low-income and rural families in CA-01 — raising the risk that local clinics, food assistance programs, and Medicaid eligibility/support will be reduced or constrained. Those programs are crucial in counties with limited healthcare infrastructure. 
2. Deficit & future cuts risk: The bill's tax cuts and spending choices increase near-term deficits; higher national debt pressures future Congresses to cut discretionary and entitlement programs that many rural constituents depend on (e.g., infrastructure grants, wildfire disaster response, rural hospital stabilization).
3. Permanent inequality: Extending top-tier cuts locks in advantages for the wealthiest while average households lose expiring credits and deductions.
4. Reduced public investment: Lower federal revenue constrains funding for roads, broadband, schools, and healthcare—all foundational to middle-class stability.
5. Debt-driven risk: Continued deficit expansion raises interest costs, crowding out future budgets for education, housing, and disaster recovery.

LaMalfa's Pattern: Repeatedly voted for GOP budget frameworks that protect or expand the 2017 tax structure while proposing trims to Medicaid, SNAP, and student-aid programs.

Effects on LaMalfa's Constituents:

1. Reduced Federal Safety Net and Healthcare Funding: Rural hospitals and clinics in CA-01 already operate on thin margins. Budget resolutions that prioritize tax cuts while reducing or constraining appropriations risk cutting Medicaid, Medicare, or rural health grants, which could lead to fewer services, higher local healthcare costs, or even the closure of clinics.
   Many constituents depend on federal health programs or subsidies. When budgets cut back on funding for these programs, people in remote counties may lose access or face longer travel times to care.  
2. Cuts to Social Assistance Programs: Many in CA-01 are low-income or fixed-income (farmworkers, older adults, veterans). Budget reconciliation efforts that include work requirements, reduced eligibility, or cuts in SNAP (food assistance) or other benefits may mean that these individuals receive less support or are required to jump through additional hoops to access it.
   Such cuts exacerbate economic insecurity, leading to increased food insecurity, housing instability, and heightened health risks among vulnerable populations. 
3. Inflation & Debt Pressures: Tax cuts without broad offsets tend to increase the federal debt. Higher national debt can contribute to inflation (by fueling government spending) and/or higher interest rates, which in turn make life more expensive—especially in rural Northern California, where energy, transportation, and heating costs are already high. Constituents in this area, many of whom are not high-income earners, see their purchasing power erode when the cost of living rises.  
4. Less Federal Support for Local Infrastructure & Public Services: Budget constraints often lead to cuts or slower funding for infrastructure, roads, broadband, forest fire prevention, and water projects. CA-01's rural nature means residents already struggle with connectivity, water storage, roads, and emergency response in wildfire season. Reduced appropriations make these challenges worse.
   Local schools, emergency services, and county public services that depend on federal grants may see less funding or delayed disbursements.
5. Unequal Benefit Distribution: Tax cuts (especially those benefiting corporations or high-income households) disproportionately benefit people outside the district, whereas many in CA-01 see less upside but are disproportionately harmed by spending cuts or the loss of services.
   Those with lower tax liabilities benefit less from cuts and more from direct services; when services are cut, those with the least fallback suffer the most.
6. Increased Pressure on Local Governments & Families. When federal funding shrinks (due to either budget appropriations cuts or restrictions), counties and towns must either shift the burden to local property or sales taxes or cut services. In poorer/rural counties with smaller tax bases, this can mean service reductions or tax increases—placing more burden on local constituents.
   Families in CA-01 are more vulnerable to local economic downturns; budget cuts at the federal level reduce their cushion and compound stress when state or local governments respond.
    

National impact on the middle class:

1. Erosion of upward mobility: Reducing support for healthcare, food security, and education constrains the ladders that build a stable middle class.
2. Regional disparity: Wealthier urban taxpayers benefit from capital gains and corporate provisions, while rural and working-class Americans—the majority of the population—gain little but face service cuts.

Overall takeaway

Across multiple sessions, Doug LaMalfa’s tax votes have:

1. Shifted long-term benefits to corporations and the wealthy while leaving ordinary taxpayers with temporary or shrinking relief.
    
2. Expanded federal deficits are heightening pressure for spending cuts that directly undercut programs relied on by the middle class.
    
3. Missed chances to modernize the economy through fairer tax policy and clean-energy investment that could generate new, middle-income jobs.