It's great that the Budget Committee minority is publishing these Byrd Rule decisions in real time. But it would be helpful to know exactly how these provisions violate the BR's six definitions of extraneous material. Presumably, these were all judged to be "merely incidental"

The silver loading decision is genuinely surprising. Having additional details about the Parliamentarian's decision and reasoning would be helpful/useful

Today's New York Times features my latest research analyzing congressional debates over the 1981, 2001, 2003, and 2017 tax cuts – and how they echo in today's tax debates. I'm honored that my work received such thoughtful coverage from the paper of record. (article linked below).

Two thoughts about the Byrd Bath and Parliamentarian: 1) the confusing logic of the Parl's Byrd Rule decisions reflects the ambiguous and (often) conflicting language of the rule itself, not the arbitrary judgment of the Parliamentarian. 2) the Byrd Rule survives because it

So it looks like these estimates use a combination of current policy and law baselines? The expiring TCJA provisions are measured against current policy and everything else is against current law?

Really interesting strategy - Thune raises a point of order re: the current policy baseline and the Budget Chair's scorekeeping authority, the presiding officer claims that there is no violation, which then puts the onus on Democrats to find a majority to win the appeal