If this article is accurate it doesn't sound like it. The change was a political tactic to make the tax bill it was part of comply with Senate budget rules on paper. Apparently this is a common tactic with tax bills, with the expectation that the changes will be repealed or altered in a later bill. There is a movement to repeal this change, but the effects have already been felt.
> Apparently this is a common tactic with tax bills, with the expectation that the changes will be repealed or altered in a later bill.
None of this adds up. You're saying, the legislators were trying to cheat and because it's a "common tactic" that kind of cheating is somehow good, but it's bad when the cheating doesn't go through?
On the other hand, being a common tactic implies that the possibility of it remaining in the books was well understood, and the declared "expectations" carry zero weight as evidence, even less than zero when coming from politicians.
Legislation like that has far reaching consequences and pretend "surprise" just confirms the intent behind it. It's only prudent to assume that we have a common tactic case of throwing sheet at the wall to see for how long it'll stick. If there's no backlash the "tactic" will remain there forever.
As another example of the same common tactic, consider the fact that all popular browsers have been used as Trojan horses into the users' local networks for like forever. At some point back in 2015 somebody objected so the browser makers started talking about fixing the problem but then stopped talking without fixing it because public opinion moved on to other areas affected by abundant sticky materials... Thus, that particular sheet remained on the wall for another 10 years and counting, and the story may repeat itself again.
When using bill reconciliation in order to avoid Senate filibusters to pass a budget, certain conditions must be met otherwise regular Senate rules and the need for 60 Senators to be onboard to avoid a filibuster come into play.
It's not cheating, it's playing by different rules to get most of what you want/need done and then sometimes those that played and gambled were intending to, or hoped to, make the changes later that require rules. Their hope is that 60+ Senators would be onboard for those changes because they (those that gambled and pushed the budget bill thru) managed to get what they wanted at the expense of #$%#ing something up that most others would then be willing to fix/address.
Agreed. If the members of the majority party can compromise within their single-party system, and play by certain rules, everyone else is powerless to amend or block the legislation.
In tax policy, every single change looks reasonable to one interest group, and like a cheat to a different interest group. That is just the nature of tax policy. Any change hurts some people, harms others.
Changes to Section 174 happen rarely and are not a “common tactic.” Changes to tax policy in general are common, especially in the reconciliation process. They can have unforeseen side effects. As well as side effects that are foreseen but considered more acceptable than other side effects.
> You're saying, the legislators were trying to cheat and because it's a "common tactic" that kind of cheating is somehow good, but it's bad when the cheating doesn't go through?
I don't think GP made any kind of value judgment either way; they were just stating how things seem to usually work.
