What's The Trigger That Requires 60 Votes In The Senate For This Tax Bill....

[global1]

instead of the 51 that the Repugs are shooting for?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. If they don't stay within the trillion and a half ??? Guessing

[Irish_Dem]

2. You mean the 60 vote trigger that applies only to Democrats? nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. Think you meant this for OP :) Yes, think that is what they mean.

[Irish_Dem]

17. Yes sorry, Laura, posted it to the wrong place. :(

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. They raise a good question. Is there nothing

The Dems can do to stop this? You can fundamentally change our tax structure with just 51 votes? Can't they filabuster until January, get Flake, and perhaps McCain may not vote...that would stop it. Does Jones come in on Jan 1??

The giveaways to the top are not the worst part to me...it's the syphoning off of funds that will be hard to get later for human needs. If we win back Congress (will be harder now) Dems will have a hard time ..being the bad guys for rolling cuts back.

[Irish_Dem]

24. McTurtle makes up the rules as he goes....so he can do whatever he wants.

It is all brazen robbery on the part of the elite.
And yes, there will no money for programs which benefit American citizens.

Not sure when McTurtle will allow Jones to be seated?

[unblock]

3. if it doesn't fit within the budget resolution -- which allows $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years

and zero after that.

so if it costs $1,500,000,000,000.01, then it needs 60 votes.
or if it costs $0.01 in the 11th or any later year, then it needs 60 votes.
conceivably, if they were to add an amendment that wasn't budget-related, then it would also need 60 votes.

[dansolo]

18. Then how can the tax cuts be permanent?

Aren't there tax cuts in this bill that extend beyond 10 years? Shouldn't that prevent it being passed through reconciliation?

[unblock]

19. only some of the things are permanent.

particularly provisions for the rich and corporations.

some things that benefit the rest of us expire, making the whole thing even more biased in favor of the rich after 2027.


the cuts that remain after 2027 are for the rich and corporations and are "paid for" with effective tax hikes for the rest of us and with the "savings" projected from repealing the obamacare mandate -- which saves the government money because millions of people will drop out of obamacare and no longer be entitled to the subsidies. oh, and because the government intends to let them simply die instead of paying for the extra medical expenses that come from getting inadequate medical care earlier.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. The repubs only need a simple majority because

It's being passed as a reconciliation bill that requires Congress and Senate to approve identical bills...

[global1]

5. I Thought There Was A Dollar Amount Threshold That They Had To Stay Under In Order To Use....

reconciliation. See response #3 above. That's why I asked the question. I heard somewhere today that this would add $2 Trillion and that would be over that threshold.

[TheDebbieDee]

10. I'm only familiar with the recon concept

Of identical bills being approved by both Houses with NO changes...

[exboyfil]

26. Don't they always have to be identical?

To go to the President.

[SCantiGOP]

9. Debbiedee is right

No specific dollar amount if it is revenue neutral (or if you can lie and claim it is) and the identical bill is passed in both Chambers.

[standingtall]

11. Adding up to a trillion and a half to the national debt

is not revenue neutral even if repukes say it is.

[SCantiGOP]

14. You make the mistake of dealing in reality

That is not in vogue in GOP DC these days.
Of course it is not anywhere near revenue neutral, but the body that gets to decide that is............the GOP-controlled Congress.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. They are basing that fuzzy math on more

Income generated with spurred economy.

[MattP]

6. That's what dynamic (bullshit) scoring was invented for

[standingtall]

7. repukes have made the filibuster useless even

without repealing it. Reconciliation can be used 3 times a year by my understanding. Very rare for more than 3 major pieces of legislation to get passed a year anyway and republicans are going to try and do everything through reconciliation . Plus 1.5 trillion is a huge number. Given how repukes have abused the reconciliation process if and when we get back the house,Senate and Presidency we should just go ahead and repeal the filibuster I don't see ANY good arguments for keeping it. We cannot stop their judicial appointments with it. We cannot stop them from repealing healthcare with it. We cannot stop them from giving tax breaks to the super rich with it and we will not be able to stop them from whoring out our infrastructure with it either. So what reason is there to keep it?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. I see your point

but I believe that there were some things that Republicans wanted to include in their ACA repeal/Tax bill that would not be allowed under reconciliation and subject to filibuster, so there is *that*

[standingtall]

15. Yeah but if repukes could not get a simple majority

to repeal healthcare without that stuff in it then they probably wouldn't have been able to get a majority with it either. Have to wait and see on the tax stuff, but it looks like the filibuster is of no value to us at the moment.

[pnwmom]

8. The item has to affect the budget. So the Parliamentarian removed an amendment

that didn't affect the budget one way or another.

[Gothmog]

12. In addition to the $1.5 trillion limit, the bill can only contain budget items

For example the provision in the House bill version that would have made fetuses persons or the elimination of the Johnson amendment would probably not qualify. There were some other things in the House bill that were deleted to this requirement

[meow2u3]

23. Any changes to Social Security are also prohibited in a reconciliation bill

Relevant passage, via Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)#Byrd_Rule

[librechik]

22. Reconciliation--if they vote when Congress is "in recess," 60 votes not needed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

Trigger is whenever a Republican doesn't want to deal with pesky Democrats

:" [Reconciliation] was never used for that purpose. But in 1975, just a year after it had passed, a very canny Senate committee chairman, Russell Long of Louisiana, came into the Parliamentarian's Office, and he kept having trouble with his tax bills because of the Senate rules. People were offering amendments to them that he didn't like. They were debating them at length, and he didn't like that. And he saw in the Budget Act a way of getting around those pesky little problems. And he convinced the Parliamentarian at the time—I was the assistant—that the very first use of reconciliation should be to protect his tax cut bill.[7]"

[Gothmog]

25. House will have to vote for tax-cut bill again

There was a portion of the House bill that failed under the reconciliation rules http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/365670-house-will-have-to-vote-for-tax-cut-bill-again

House Republicans will need to pass their tax plan for a second time after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that provisions in the bill violated the rules governing the legislation.

"Members are advised that we expect Senate Democrats to insist on a Byrd Point of Order on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1, which is likely to be sustained," said guidance from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise's (R-La.) office, which was sent to GOP lawmakers.

"As such, Members are further advised that an additional procedural vote on the Motion to Concur is expected tomorrow morning, which will clear the bill for President Trump’s signature," his office added.

[doc03]

27. Apparently there isn't one, I thought the last 51 vote was for repealing Obamacare. Here we

are again on the tax plan.