Catherine Rampell

And then the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, these sort of neutral referees get to say, okay, does it actually meet that or not? And then there's this person called the Senate Parliamentarian. It's like all of these trappings of... Whatever Senate procedure Senate parliamentarian gets to say your number equals their number or it doesn't.

And then the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, these sort of neutral referees get to say, okay, does it actually meet that or not? And then there's this person called the Senate Parliamentarian. It's like all of these trappings of... Whatever Senate procedure Senate parliamentarian gets to say your number equals their number or it doesn't.

And if it doesn't, it's much harder to pass the bill effectively. Right. Like if the things match, then they only need a majority vote. And Democrats have no way to kill the bill. That's why they're doing this special process so that they can now have a majority vote, can't be filibustered, et cetera. That is how it normally works.

And if it doesn't, it's much harder to pass the bill effectively. Right. Like if the things match, then they only need a majority vote. And Democrats have no way to kill the bill. That's why they're doing this special process so that they can now have a majority vote, can't be filibustered, et cetera. That is how it normally works.

And if it doesn't, it's much harder to pass the bill effectively. Right. Like if the things match, then they only need a majority vote. And Democrats have no way to kill the bill. That's why they're doing this special process so that they can now have a majority vote, can't be filibustered, et cetera. That is how it normally works.

What Lindsey Graham, who is the Senate budget chair, has said is, nope, none of that matters. I get to decide how the math works. And I am deciding that tax cuts that we passed before and are set to expire, if we re-up them, they will be free. And that's it, right? Two plus two equals five. Or in this particular arithmetic, $4 trillion equals zero. That's what's happening here.

What Lindsey Graham, who is the Senate budget chair, has said is, nope, none of that matters. I get to decide how the math works. And I am deciding that tax cuts that we passed before and are set to expire, if we re-up them, they will be free. And that's it, right? Two plus two equals five. Or in this particular arithmetic, $4 trillion equals zero. That's what's happening here.

What Lindsey Graham, who is the Senate budget chair, has said is, nope, none of that matters. I get to decide how the math works. And I am deciding that tax cuts that we passed before and are set to expire, if we re-up them, they will be free. And that's it, right? Two plus two equals five. Or in this particular arithmetic, $4 trillion equals zero. That's what's happening here.

It's a fancy way of saying Republicans... get to control the law's arithmetic. They get to rewrite the math and the normal checks and balances, you know, just looking at like in the spreadsheet, does this thing equal this thing? None of that matters anymore. So that's like the overarching takeaway that I would have on this, that they are just, it's truly Orwellian.

It's a fancy way of saying Republicans... get to control the law's arithmetic. They get to rewrite the math and the normal checks and balances, you know, just looking at like in the spreadsheet, does this thing equal this thing? None of that matters anymore. So that's like the overarching takeaway that I would have on this, that they are just, it's truly Orwellian.

It's a fancy way of saying Republicans... get to control the law's arithmetic. They get to rewrite the math and the normal checks and balances, you know, just looking at like in the spreadsheet, does this thing equal this thing? None of that matters anymore. So that's like the overarching takeaway that I would have on this, that they are just, it's truly Orwellian.

They get to decide how arithmetic works. The specific thing that they're doing, which is what you were talking about with saying like, well, the old tax cuts are free. To help people understand this, why it makes no sense is it's like if you had a car lease and the lease ended, that's like saying the next lease won't cost anything because I got really used to having a car.

They get to decide how arithmetic works. The specific thing that they're doing, which is what you were talking about with saying like, well, the old tax cuts are free. To help people understand this, why it makes no sense is it's like if you had a car lease and the lease ended, that's like saying the next lease won't cost anything because I got really used to having a car.

They get to decide how arithmetic works. The specific thing that they're doing, which is what you were talking about with saying like, well, the old tax cuts are free. To help people understand this, why it makes no sense is it's like if you had a car lease and the lease ended, that's like saying the next lease won't cost anything because I got really used to having a car.

Even though, of course, the new lease will cost you something every month. But that's basically what they're doing with tax cuts. They're saying, we got used to having the tax cuts. If we have another round of tax cuts at the same levels, that won't cost anything. I think that the bigger long-term problem is they are now setting a precedent where

Even though, of course, the new lease will cost you something every month. But that's basically what they're doing with tax cuts. They're saying, we got used to having the tax cuts. If we have another round of tax cuts at the same levels, that won't cost anything. I think that the bigger long-term problem is they are now setting a precedent where

Even though, of course, the new lease will cost you something every month. But that's basically what they're doing with tax cuts. They're saying, we got used to having the tax cuts. If we have another round of tax cuts at the same levels, that won't cost anything. I think that the bigger long-term problem is they are now setting a precedent where

they get to decide, the majority gets to decide effectively how math works. That's alarming. There are a whole bunch of reasons why this is interesting, but including that, of course, Republicans and some Democrats were like apoplectic about the idea of ruining or ending other Senate norms, like ending the filibuster and things like that. And these are all related.

they get to decide, the majority gets to decide effectively how math works. That's alarming. There are a whole bunch of reasons why this is interesting, but including that, of course, Republicans and some Democrats were like apoplectic about the idea of ruining or ending other Senate norms, like ending the filibuster and things like that. And these are all related.

they get to decide, the majority gets to decide effectively how math works. That's alarming. There are a whole bunch of reasons why this is interesting, but including that, of course, Republicans and some Democrats were like apoplectic about the idea of ruining or ending other Senate norms, like ending the filibuster and things like that. And these are all related.