2025-04-03T11:25:14Z

---

WASHINGTON — A seemingly obscure matter of accounting and bookkeeping is rapidly evolving into a significant flashpoint in Congress, as Republicans intensify their efforts to advance President Donald Trump's ambitious tax cut agenda. Senate Republicans are now working on a strategy that seeks to alter the way the extension of many of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts is evaluated in relation to future federal deficits. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that maintaining these tax cuts would lead to an increase in the national deficit by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade, raising serious concerns among fiscal watchdogs and Democrats alike.

As tensions rise, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has accused Republicans of undermining Senate norms with their proposed changes. He argues that their actions represent a reckless abandonment of institutional rules, labeling the Republicans' approach as going “nuclear.” This contentious debate carries significant implications not only for Trump’s legislative agenda but also for the economic and budgetary landscape of the nation for years to come.

The core of this dispute centers around the 'baseline' that lawmakers are considering for scoring the tax cuts. Republicans aim to draft their legislation using a baseline that reflects no impact on the deficit. This approach operates under the assumption that Trump's 2017 tax cuts will automatically continue, effectively treating the renewal of these tax cuts as cost-free. Furthermore, Republicans plan to pursue this course of action without seeking a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian, who traditionally adjudicates whether such scoring methods comply with the rules surrounding tax legislation requiring only a simple majority vote.

Senator Cory Booker, D-N.J., expressed his frustration on the Senate floor, delivering an impassioned protest against Trump’s agenda that lasted more than 25 hours. “They are deciding that the way we're going to do this is to break the Senate and make up our own rules,” he lamented. “This is how they are going to get a bill through that gives trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest in the country.” This accounting change is crucial for Republicans as it simplifies the process of making the tax cuts permanent, thus enabling them to push a bill through Congress more easily this year. However, it starkly highlights a historical trend where tax cuts, along with spending, often take precedence over deficit reduction, contributing to the ballooning national debt, which is now over $36 trillion.

The debate has polarized opinions among influential groups in Washington. A variety of powerful business and trade organizations are advocating for the accounting change, arguing that making the 2017 tax cuts permanent would provide the stability and predictability that companies need to foster growth and enhance productivity. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., stated, “Americans should not have to worry about their tax relief expiring every few years.”

On the other hand, fiscal watchdogs are raising alarms about the implications of this proposed change. Michael Peterson, chairman and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a prominent deficit-monitoring group, cautioned, “I think this should be rejected by any fiscally responsible member of Congress. It’s a blatant attempt to get around one of the few rules we have that protects the next generation and our fiscal future.”

The situation also ties back to the Senate's filibuster rules. Typically, passing legislation in the Senate requires a supermajority of 60 votes. However, Republicans are attempting to circumvent this requirement to push Trump’s tax cut package through with a simple majority. To avoid a Senate filibuster, certain rules must be adhered to, including stipulations against increasing the deficit beyond a specific timeframe, usually set at ten years. Republicans strategically decided to phase out significant portions of the 2017 tax cuts after eight years to comply with this rule.

The Senate parliamentarian traditionally determines whether proposed legislative changes meet the necessary criteria for bypassing a filibuster. Nevertheless, Republicans assert that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has the authority to dictate which baseline is appropriate for scoring the bill's cost. Schumer expressed his outrage at this approach, stating, “By ignoring the parliamentarian, Republicans are going nuclear. They're trampling all over rules that have governed the Senate for decades in order to give massive tax breaks for their billionaire friends.”

During a recent meeting with Republican senators, President Trump was informed of this strategy. “We explained to him that we no longer need a ruling from the parliamentarian, that we can do it through the authority of the Budget chairman,” Senator John Kennedy, R-La., reported. “We told him undoubtedly the Democrats will challenge it. We will win.”

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, emphasized that, under traditional processes, lawmakers must fully offset the costs of tax cuts in the long run; otherwise, the provisions of the bill will expire. The proposed scorekeeping modification would liberate Congress from acknowledging the financial implications of the proposed tax cuts, thereby reducing the pressure to offset the costs of extending these cuts.

In contrast, House Republicans have approached their budget plan with the understanding that tax cuts do incur costs, which they have attempted to offset with at least $2 trillion in proposed spending cuts. It remains uncertain whether House Republicans will align with the Senate's proposed changes. House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington of Texas has indicated a willingness to consider the Senate proposal, provided certain conditions are fulfilled. “What I would hate to see happen is for a product to come from the Senate that has all the tax cuts that any Republican in the Senate could desire under any circumstance, but none of the hard decisions to rein in the spending that is driving us off a fiscal cliff,” Arrington expressed.

Critics of the proposed accounting change caution that Republicans could be setting a precarious precedent that might backfire if Democrats regain control of Congress. Peterson characterized the move as a “foundational change,” akin to dismantling the filibuster, warning that it could establish a dangerous precedent that both parties could exploit in the future. He elaborated, “Just as Republicans are seeking to make temporary tax cuts permanent, Democrats could work to institutionalize new spending initiatives, both of which would significantly add to the national debt and circumvent long-standing rules and traditions within the budgetary process.”