We're all aware that there is a tremendous battle going on right now over the tax rates set to expire at the end of this year. Not being well versed in legislation, I thought I'd call on the more knowledgeable folks in the DK community. So, what about the Byrd Rule?
When the republicans passed the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, both were passed under the rules of reconciliation. So what does this mean:
Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.
So if the law is changed to make the tax cuts for either the middle class or the millionaires permanent, aren't they then in violation of the Byrd Rule? To me it seems that technically, they would need to let the tax cuts expire, and then pass a new law with the current rates to have the same effect as extending the current tax policy.
I haven't read the original law, but I'm not sure you could even decouple the rates as President Obama is proposing and the republicans are dead set against. Has the cold dead hand of Sen. Robert Byrd reached from beyond the grave to spank both sides? Just asking...