'Be careful about this': GOP faces numerous warnings about potential decision to abandon tax cuts
On Thursday, Republicans are set to hold discussions regarding the accounting maneuver with President Donald Trump.
TroibNews 
This accounting strategy has the potential to disrupt the Senate, alter the federal budget process, and contribute significantly to the national debt. Critics of this fiscal approach, which congressional Republicans are contemplating, warn of the serious implications as they seek to satisfy all of President Donald Trump’s policy demands.
The “current policy baseline” method could be the sole avenue for the GOP to make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent while avoiding significant reductions in federal programs and adding new income tax exemptions for things like tips, overtime, and Social Security. Trump is anticipated to address this strategy with members of the Senate Finance Committee during a White House meeting on Thursday.
If Congress proceeds with this change, it would effectively suggest that maintaining current tax rates, which are set to expire at the end of the year, would incur no cost—contrary to the estimated $4 trillion impact over a decade projected by nonpartisan analysts.
While some Republicans assert that extending current tax rates should not factor into the deficit calculations, critics—including notable GOP budget authorities—are concerned this approach could lead to perilous consequences, turning into a fiscal Pandora’s box that could perpetually excuse large deficits.
“I would caution my friends, my Republican friends and senators up there, be careful about this,” urged Bill Hoagland, the former GOP staff director for the Senate Budget Committee. “Someday you may be in the minority.”
This tactic is appealing as it presents a solution to a challenging political dilemma for Republicans. Budget conservatives in the House, concerned about the party-line domestic policy bill increasing federal deficits, want a direct link between planned tax cuts and the spending reductions that Republicans can achieve.
Even then, the House's upper limit of $4.5 trillion for tax cuts does not provide enough leeway for a permanent extension of the expiring cuts alongside Trump's other tax-related proposals.
For instance, Trump's additional tax-related requests—such as income tax exemptions for overtime, tips, and Social Security benefits—could total another $5 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Critics argue that members from either party could exploit this maneuver to obscure trillions in spending via tax policies. Democrats contend that if Republicans proceed, they would be overturning decades of precedent—and contradicting their longstanding anti-deficit stance—to provide tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren described it as “magic math” in an interview, asserting that this approach would dismantle the established congressional budget process that has stood for over 50 years.
“They can’t repeal the underlying reality, a $4.7 trillion giveaway to billionaires and giant corporations will cost $4.7 trillion,” she stated, referring to the estimated cost of the tax cut extensions including interest.
Senator Mark Warner, who recently signed a letter with Warren questioning the GOP’s approach, remarked, “If this was done in the accounting world, you wouldn’t be an accountant for very long.”
In response, Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, the main proponent of the current policy baseline, argued it would correct budget scoring rules that advantage higher spending over lower taxes.
“If you’re not changing the tax code, you’re simply extending current policy, you are not increasing the deficit,” Crapo said on Fox Business in January. “We’ve got to get some kind of sensibility into the way that we score.”
Senator John Kennedy, a member of the Budget Committee, dismissed concerns that the GOP was undermining budget procedures established since 1974 while also admitting that Democrats might utilize the current policy baseline strategy when they reclaim power.
“They will probably use current policy themselves in the future when they’re back in the majority,” he noted.
Beyond the controversies surrounding its accounting implications, the current policy baseline represents a significant political risk for Republicans, as the success of Trump’s entire tax agenda hangs in the balance.
The GOP might remain uncertain for weeks or even months if the maneuver will secure approval from the Senate’s parliamentarian. With the permanent extension of expiring tax cuts becoming increasingly central to the Republican agenda, an unfavorable ruling could create significant challenges in their calculations.
“It would complicate making the tax cuts permanent,” indicated Senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Budget Committee.
This scenario might prompt pressure on Republicans to overrule or dismiss the parliamentarian—a shift that would disrupt the fragile equilibrium that senators from both parties have followed for decades, which stipulates that only bills that comply with strict fiscal rules aimed at curbing deficits can bypass the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for concluding debate and proceeding to a final vote.
“As far as I’m concerned, that might as well give away the filibuster in the Senate,” Hoagland commented.
Republicans contest any claims of violating longstanding budget norms, and there is considerable skepticism within the Senate GOP regarding the likelihood of voting to overturn the long-serving parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough.
We can state “it’s a $4 trillion deficit that we’re going to add into this, or we can say it’s current policy, but everyone knows it’s the exact same the next day,” Senator James Lankford remarked in an interview. “So it’s nomenclature.”
Key Republican staff are already informally engaging with the parliamentarian to gauge her stance. Although senators won't receive a formal ruling until they navigate a “Byrd bath”—where the proposed reconciliation bill is evaluated for compliance with the rules allowing simple majority passage—they often discuss procedural strategies with the parliamentarian’s office beforehand.
“We think the law is pretty clear … but these things are all subject to discussion and arguments made in front of the parliamentarian,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed in a brief interview, while noting that the process is still a long way from finalization.
However, skepticism remains among former congressional staff and budget experts regarding whether the Senate GOP plan will align with the rules of reconciliation. Senator Jeff Merkley, the leading Democrat on the Budget Committee, predicted that the parliamentarian is unlikely to endorse the GOP’s strategy, as it "seems like a pretty big stretch" of the regulations.
George Callas of Arnold Ventures, who previously served as the top tax aide for former Speaker Paul Ryan during the formation of the 2017 law, criticized the adoption of the current policy baseline as a “huge gimmick.”
“My understanding is that the Senate parliamentarian gives a great deal of weight to the existing rules and the precedents and takes a skeptical look at just expedient reinterpretations of those rules for political reasons,” he stated.
Ramin Sohrabi contributed to this report for TROIB News
The “current policy baseline” method could be the sole avenue for the GOP to make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent while avoiding significant reductions in federal programs and adding new income tax exemptions for things like tips, overtime, and Social Security. Trump is anticipated to address this strategy with members of the Senate Finance Committee during a White House meeting on Thursday.
If Congress proceeds with this change, it would effectively suggest that maintaining current tax rates, which are set to expire at the end of the year, would incur no cost—contrary to the estimated $4 trillion impact over a decade projected by nonpartisan analysts.
While some Republicans assert that extending current tax rates should not factor into the deficit calculations, critics—including notable GOP budget authorities—are concerned this approach could lead to perilous consequences, turning into a fiscal Pandora’s box that could perpetually excuse large deficits.
“I would caution my friends, my Republican friends and senators up there, be careful about this,” urged Bill Hoagland, the former GOP staff director for the Senate Budget Committee. “Someday you may be in the minority.”
This tactic is appealing as it presents a solution to a challenging political dilemma for Republicans. Budget conservatives in the House, concerned about the party-line domestic policy bill increasing federal deficits, want a direct link between planned tax cuts and the spending reductions that Republicans can achieve.
Even then, the House's upper limit of $4.5 trillion for tax cuts does not provide enough leeway for a permanent extension of the expiring cuts alongside Trump's other tax-related proposals.
For instance, Trump's additional tax-related requests—such as income tax exemptions for overtime, tips, and Social Security benefits—could total another $5 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Critics argue that members from either party could exploit this maneuver to obscure trillions in spending via tax policies. Democrats contend that if Republicans proceed, they would be overturning decades of precedent—and contradicting their longstanding anti-deficit stance—to provide tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren described it as “magic math” in an interview, asserting that this approach would dismantle the established congressional budget process that has stood for over 50 years.
“They can’t repeal the underlying reality, a $4.7 trillion giveaway to billionaires and giant corporations will cost $4.7 trillion,” she stated, referring to the estimated cost of the tax cut extensions including interest.
Senator Mark Warner, who recently signed a letter with Warren questioning the GOP’s approach, remarked, “If this was done in the accounting world, you wouldn’t be an accountant for very long.”
In response, Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, the main proponent of the current policy baseline, argued it would correct budget scoring rules that advantage higher spending over lower taxes.
“If you’re not changing the tax code, you’re simply extending current policy, you are not increasing the deficit,” Crapo said on Fox Business in January. “We’ve got to get some kind of sensibility into the way that we score.”
Senator John Kennedy, a member of the Budget Committee, dismissed concerns that the GOP was undermining budget procedures established since 1974 while also admitting that Democrats might utilize the current policy baseline strategy when they reclaim power.
“They will probably use current policy themselves in the future when they’re back in the majority,” he noted.
Beyond the controversies surrounding its accounting implications, the current policy baseline represents a significant political risk for Republicans, as the success of Trump’s entire tax agenda hangs in the balance.
The GOP might remain uncertain for weeks or even months if the maneuver will secure approval from the Senate’s parliamentarian. With the permanent extension of expiring tax cuts becoming increasingly central to the Republican agenda, an unfavorable ruling could create significant challenges in their calculations.
“It would complicate making the tax cuts permanent,” indicated Senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Budget Committee.
This scenario might prompt pressure on Republicans to overrule or dismiss the parliamentarian—a shift that would disrupt the fragile equilibrium that senators from both parties have followed for decades, which stipulates that only bills that comply with strict fiscal rules aimed at curbing deficits can bypass the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for concluding debate and proceeding to a final vote.
“As far as I’m concerned, that might as well give away the filibuster in the Senate,” Hoagland commented.
Republicans contest any claims of violating longstanding budget norms, and there is considerable skepticism within the Senate GOP regarding the likelihood of voting to overturn the long-serving parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough.
We can state “it’s a $4 trillion deficit that we’re going to add into this, or we can say it’s current policy, but everyone knows it’s the exact same the next day,” Senator James Lankford remarked in an interview. “So it’s nomenclature.”
Key Republican staff are already informally engaging with the parliamentarian to gauge her stance. Although senators won't receive a formal ruling until they navigate a “Byrd bath”—where the proposed reconciliation bill is evaluated for compliance with the rules allowing simple majority passage—they often discuss procedural strategies with the parliamentarian’s office beforehand.
“We think the law is pretty clear … but these things are all subject to discussion and arguments made in front of the parliamentarian,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed in a brief interview, while noting that the process is still a long way from finalization.
However, skepticism remains among former congressional staff and budget experts regarding whether the Senate GOP plan will align with the rules of reconciliation. Senator Jeff Merkley, the leading Democrat on the Budget Committee, predicted that the parliamentarian is unlikely to endorse the GOP’s strategy, as it "seems like a pretty big stretch" of the regulations.
George Callas of Arnold Ventures, who previously served as the top tax aide for former Speaker Paul Ryan during the formation of the 2017 law, criticized the adoption of the current policy baseline as a “huge gimmick.”
“My understanding is that the Senate parliamentarian gives a great deal of weight to the existing rules and the precedents and takes a skeptical look at just expedient reinterpretations of those rules for political reasons,” he stated.
Ramin Sohrabi contributed to this report for TROIB News
