Catherine Rampell

But then some of these people seem like they have some credibility because they're a PhD economist or because they were a Wall Street titan that markets trust. And when they go on TV and lie about the economics here, I think that is so much more destructive than because it encourages Trump to keep on doing the stupid, stupid, stupid thing.

And it hurts any credibility they might ultimately have with markets who can see through this clearly. And as things get worse, we will need someone to go on TV and present a credible plan, I hope, for how to get ourselves out of this. And there's just no one left to trust.

And it hurts any credibility they might ultimately have with markets who can see through this clearly. And as things get worse, we will need someone to go on TV and present a credible plan, I hope, for how to get ourselves out of this. And there's just no one left to trust.

And it hurts any credibility they might ultimately have with markets who can see through this clearly. And as things get worse, we will need someone to go on TV and present a credible plan, I hope, for how to get ourselves out of this. And there's just no one left to trust.

Yes. So the word Orwellian gets overused a lot. Everybody and their grandmother has been called Orwellian at some point. But there's this famous line in 1984 that actually George Orwell had used versions of elsewhere as well, where he said something like it would get to the point where if the party said two plus two equals five, you would just have to believe it was so. And that is...

Yes. So the word Orwellian gets overused a lot. Everybody and their grandmother has been called Orwellian at some point. But there's this famous line in 1984 that actually George Orwell had used versions of elsewhere as well, where he said something like it would get to the point where if the party said two plus two equals five, you would just have to believe it was so. And that is...

Yes. So the word Orwellian gets overused a lot. Everybody and their grandmother has been called Orwellian at some point. But there's this famous line in 1984 that actually George Orwell had used versions of elsewhere as well, where he said something like it would get to the point where if the party said two plus two equals five, you would just have to believe it was so. And that is...

quite close, if not exactly what Senate Republicans just did. Historically, what has happened is they get to say, okay, our bill can lose this much money because it's always losing money, at least when we're talking about tax cuts. Our bill can lose X amount of money and

quite close, if not exactly what Senate Republicans just did. Historically, what has happened is they get to say, okay, our bill can lose this much money because it's always losing money, at least when we're talking about tax cuts. Our bill can lose X amount of money and

quite close, if not exactly what Senate Republicans just did. Historically, what has happened is they get to say, okay, our bill can lose this much money because it's always losing money, at least when we're talking about tax cuts. Our bill can lose X amount of money and

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 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.