RE: #1 Does it score? Basically, does CBO think it affects the federal budget at all. Can it produce a score or preliminary score of some reasonable size? At least ±$500k can help so you don’t get an asterisk score * Changing only authorizations often don't have a budget effect.
RE: #4 Does this increase the deficit (on net) in the long term? This is going to matter and cause a HUGE commotion depending on if the Republicans get their current law baseline gimmick into play. Permanent tax cuts need to be paid for with permanent savers.
RE: #6 And finally, the “merely incidental test.” This one is subjective. There is not some $$$ budget number that fixes “merely incidental”. As I explain it, to clear the “merely incidental test”, can you successfully 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 what you are doing is about the spending or revenue changes proposed?
For example, here are 3 types of things that often end up with “merely incidental” debate: Provisions that affect single targets, waivers for areas/states/people, changing regulations on private industry.
And… Murkowski’s Alaska carevout gets the Byrd. Your followers knew this would happen.
Sold her State down the river for nothing. I hope Alaskans never forget.
Can still vote not in the end. There’s time
My optimism was murdered by my cynicism but I hope you're right.
One thing about Dems not waiving the reading of Thune's amendment: Gave the Parl time to work on these.
So how does this play out IRL. We are in the "Byrd Bath" where the majority and the minority consult separately with the Senate Parliamentarian and then argue against each other in front of Parls as to how she should rule. (this can apply to any parliamentary question not just Byrd)
Parls will provide guidance/decisions based on those arguments and established precedent. But these decisions are not always made public. But it looks like Ranking Member Merkley is releasing them this time! Thanks for the help
That's a wrap on the Bluesky #ByrdRule thread. Ask me any and all questions! Drop them below