4 ms·

> by both rule and statute they'll need a filibuster-proof majority to pass most of these policies Couldn't the republicans use reconciliation (in which only a

> by both rule and statute they'll need a filibuster-proof majority to pass most of these policies Couldn't the republicans use reconciliation (in which only a simple majority vote is needed) to push tax reform?

tptacek 10y ago
No. By statute, you can't use reconciliation to pass a bill that raises the deficit 10 years out. It's not even a Senate rule they can "go nuclear" on: it's a law.
- twoodfin 10y ago
  Is there a political cost or statutory block to doing a Bush-tax-cuts-style 10 year expiring plan? Regardless of the merits, most of those cuts are still law, and the GOP was able to extract concessions for the parts that were allowed to expire. Once in place, tax cuts are hard to reverse even through inaction.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The Bush tax cuts expired in 10 years because the deficit projections allowed it to last that long. Projections for this proposal --- which again I think we should treat as fictitious, like every administration's first tax plan --- give it 2 years.
- gwright 10y ago
  This doesn't sound right to me. Reconciliation is a rule adopted by Congress as allowed for by Article I, Section 5.2. It doesn't sound right that a statute can be controlling over Congressional rules. I would appreciate a link to the statute you had in mind. It seems more likely that the rules, and not a statute, forbid using reconciliation in that case. Of course those rules could be changed by a majority vote, I believe. I think the only Constitution constraint is that budget bills must originate in the House.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
If they used reconciliation, they would expire in a couple of years. Corporations are not going to adjust their structure based on something that's going to expire in a couple of years so if reconciliation was used we'd get none of the job benefits of a corporate tax cuts, at massive expense.

tptacek 10y ago

No. By statute, you can't use reconciliation to pass a bill that raises the deficit 10 years out. It's not even a Senate rule they can "go nuclear" on: it's a law.

twoodfin 10y ago
Is there a political cost or statutory block to doing a Bush-tax-cuts-style 10 year expiring plan? Regardless of the merits, most of those cuts are still law, and the GOP was able to extract concessions for the parts that were allowed to expire. Once in place, tax cuts are hard to reverse even through inaction.
- tptacek 10y ago
  The Bush tax cuts expired in 10 years because the deficit projections allowed it to last that long. Projections for this proposal --- which again I think we should treat as fictitious, like every administration's first tax plan --- give it 2 years.
gwright 10y ago
This doesn't sound right to me. Reconciliation is a rule adopted by Congress as allowed for by Article I, Section 5.2. It doesn't sound right that a statute can be controlling over Congressional rules. I would appreciate a link to the statute you had in mind. It seems more likely that the rules, and not a statute, forbid using reconciliation in that case. Of course those rules could be changed by a majority vote, I believe. I think the only Constitution constraint is that budget bills must originate in the House.

bryanlarsen 10y ago

If they used reconciliation, they would expire in a couple of years. Corporations are not going to adjust their structure based on something that's going to expire in a couple of years so if reconciliation was used we'd get none of the job benefits of a corporate tax cuts, at massive expense.