OK, I'm still obsessed with Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough. She has struck again. Bob Corker demanded a "deficit trigger" to pull back the tax cuts if/when they blow up the deficit. Remember, though, that the GOP is using budget reconciliation so that they don't have to worry about Democratic filibusters. That means they are subject to the Byrd rule. Nothing non-budgetary is allowed. Who makes a ruling about what is and is not budgetary? The person I love to characterize as some rampaging barbarian, or Reaver, etc. The Senate parliamentarian-- Elizabeth MacDonough. I've been having a lot of fun with her because she keeps ripping the GOP's policies to shreds under the Byrd rule.
She strikes again!
Corker's deficit trigger, according to MacDonough, is not Byrd rule-compliant. Gotta admit-- I did not see that coming. It had to do with the way the trigger was written, and it was because the trigger was based on economic growth projections in order to incorporate dynamic scoring, but given that, OK.
MacDonough feasted last night. And now Corker is twitchy about the bill.
What does this mean?
1) I've been calling bullshit on Corker's deficit-hawkery, and writing that I'll believe it when I see it. The GOP is now looking for a new way to write the bill to satisfy Corker. And Corker is still negotiating. Here's the thing, though. Corker's initial statement was that he would never vote for any bill that added a penny to the deficit. Once he starts negotiating on this, I revert to the old joke, and reference only the punchline. "We've already established that. We're just haggling about the price." Corker is just trying to figure out how far he's willing to go breaking that initial promise. There is no way that any bill the GOP puts on the floor will be deficit neutral, and Corker knows it. If he isn't a firm no, then he's a deficit-faker. This is just about whether or not McConnell can find a way to let Corker lie to himself, under MacDonough's rules.
2) This might not even matter because McCain is full of shit. Remember how McCain cared so much about regular order during the healthcare debate? Yeah, fuck that shit. The tax bill has followed the exact same procedure, and he's a yes vote. Oh, and remember how McCain voted no on "skinny repeal?" Well, skinny repeal is in here. Remember how I keep telling you that McCain is a fuckin' faker? Yeah. I'm still right about that.
3) Collins is twitchy, but not a no vote.
4) Ron Johnson is still being dramatic. You can still ignore him. Treat him like a cat. He's trying to get you to approach him. But, he really does want to be pet. If you ignore him, he'll come to you. He won't sink the bill. If the bill is going to fail, he was opposed all along, but if the whip count is 50-49 without him, he'll bring the yes-tally up to 50 so that Pence can break the tie. Ignore the Drama Clubbers when they get dramatic.
Put this together, and what does it all mean? I'd still put the odds of passage at something relatively high, eventually. Corker may wind up surprising me and voting no. The party might just give up on him, and let him be a symbolic no vote this time. Collins could vote no. McConnell is throwing every penny he can find at Murkowski. The party will give anything for a tax cut, and nobody in the party is opposed to the principle of a tax cut.
So, maybe Corker does vote no. Maybe he is joined by Collins. Game theory here says that what McConnell should do is follow ole' Bill Riker's advice from A Theory of Political Coalitions. The basic strategy is the "minimal winning coalition" strategy. McConnell has a limited pool of resources to divide because of the $1.5 trillion cap. So, spread it around among as small a group as possible. That means 50. If Corker won't play along, fuck him. Collins gets nervous? Well, she's always nervous. Have you heard the sound of her voice? Back a dump truck of money up to Alaska, just like the Appropriations Committee did all through Ted Stevens's career to buy her off, smack Ron Johnson around a bit (phrasing intentional), remind everyone else that this is a fucking tax cut and they are Republicans and call the damned vote.
Will it still pass? Probably. Last I went through the scenarios, I thought Corker was more likely to vote yes than McCain, but hey. Gain McCain, lose your Corker, and call it a wash.
The odds of passage did go down. Elizabeth MacDonough struck again! I didn't see that coming. Still, that just puts the pressure on McConnell to keep everyone other than Corker in line (and even Corker isn't a definite no vote). I don't see why he can't do that.